The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-04-02 PC APPROVED SIGNED MINUTESSpecial Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Spokane Valley City Hall April 2, 2026 I. Chairman Robertson called the special meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. The meeting was held in person and via ZOOM meetings. II. The Commissioners and staff stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Jennifer Musselwhite took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: John Robertson Bob McKinley - Absent Thomas Dingus - Zoom Kristopher Pockell Justin Weathermen Ann Winkler Steve Roberge, Planning Manager Tony Beattie, Senior Deputy City Attorney Jonny Solberg, IT Specialist Jennifer Musselwhite, Admin Assistant There was a consensus from the Planning Commissioners to excuse Vice Chairman McKinley from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Pockell moved, and it was seconded, to approve the agenda for April 2, 2026. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Pockell moved, and it was seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORT: There were no Planning Commissioner reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Steve Roberge reported the upcoming schedule. He will be canceling a few meetings and adding in a special meeting on April 301h. The schedule will resume to regular days beginning in May. Date: Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Winkler reported that she would not be available at the next meeting and asked to be excused. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Jim Frank has been reviewing housing affordability as agencies move through their Growth Management Act. He presented a pdf PowerPoint to accompany his statement regarding affordable housing options. • Elizabeth Tellessen submitted a written statement to the Planning Commission before the meeting regarding a housing allocation discrepancy. Steve Roberge, Planning Manager, made a statement about the housing allocation and where those numbers are derived from. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Draft Element Review c Chapter 8: Utilities Element - The commissioners took a few minutes to review some last-minute changes to the utilities element that were not available before the meeting. Mr. Roberge presented the utilities element, and the commissioners discussed the element and praised the changes as they were presented. Chapter 5: Housing Element and Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis - Mr. Roberge presented the changes to the housing element. This included changes to the income distribution to account for inflation. Commissioner Dingus requested additional documentation to validate the income numbers. The commissioners discussed the income distribution and housing numbers. Chairman Robertson requested that there be some information that shows age as it compares to income level to determine who is driving the housing needs. Chapter 11: Climate & Resiliency Element - Mr. Roberge presented the requested changes to this element. This included the changes to the vulnerability assessment and a request for any emissions data prior to 2022. The emissions data could be compiled, but it might not be accurate or comparable to current data. The commissioners asked for any data on where the city might compare to other jurisdictions. Mr. Roberge briefly discussed the draft review schedule. There was a Date: Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 discussion regarding the comments submitted and when those would be thoroughly reviewed. The commissioners also discussed possible map overlays that they would like to see for housing distributions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Weathermon voiced his excitement for the process and moving forward with the comprehensive plan update. Commissioner Winkler is encouraged to see options for affordable single-family homes. Chairman Robertson gave a statement regarding the 250th anniversary of the United States. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Winkler moved, and it was seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. L,Jehn Robertson, Chairman rio Denise Mclain, Secretary 04, u`t 2,M, Date Signed Planning Commission Spokane Sign -in sheet ,,;OoWVa11ey- April 2, 2026 NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS ZipE-MAIL I PA A .KL t2��-zz° I Affordable Housing Options Small Homes on Small Lots and Townhomes: The Most Effective Option for Affordable Home Ownership and Housing families in Low Income Bands Misconception: Apartments as the Most Effective Housing Option for Low Income Bands Apanm.im.on noromconalma Ap.nn .onnmff yvuW Wry lode epp�al .naeuon rasa mnn A,xxy M.an e.mr911 ltl In co.Mm linene+M..n. NO land at oomdom Apmlmanl do no[ MepMe finely Imo .nixela^ebh.lb. n Annlmem4 suer lh. fousing InedutlM In our COnnunlees Housing for all income bands should be be affordable, resilient, and located in connected neighborhoods and communities. 1111ftwh.l.1 Variable Housing Construction Costs Development costs increase as mass, scale and complexity of the structure increases • More Complex construction systems • I ncreasel life safety and energy code requirement • Fewer siting options and higher land costs • More complex and fewer financing options • Much longer entitlement and construction time frame6 .l' I 4e$°:� l' Small Homes on Small Lots Provide Best And Most Effective Option for Affordable Housing Small homes and townhomes are fine lawgt sort housing option On small Iota single family homes, can achieve aF density Small homes laveshotconsnvcdon lead times and as easier io finance than aparMwres Small homes and mwnhomes easiy imega. into existing neighborhooM The Average Cost of Commerce Funded Apartment Projects: $475,000 per unit and over S500/sf 1/ Average Cost of Habitat Homes in Highland Village: $255,00 per unit and less than $175/SF 2/ 1l Depaanem of Oanmerce Housing Tmst wnd Pmjeo s4 2,1 2 Habiat for Humariy Spokane The regulatory rules favor apartment Smaller Homes on development over home ownership. Small Lots 1 , I I This is an essmple of now smalls Mmes and be clusters on ypcal The construction of small home on small lots city blocks. is constricted by a signifant shortage of land or The onas fanbe softao ort ttUnits o groups a two or lnma inventory, lot size and frontage standards and Raohcnaaapeaald ,,oAdas very complicated lot creation rules and °`"° edwnersnp l process that can take years to complete. and thus story homes using Two hared dr. -� -. Attached Small Single Family Homes of :<. ,1 ,g Habitat Cottage Homes 5225,O0O Construction Cost Highland Village in Airway Heights 2025 One and T,vu story Cottage Homes 1200-140Csf Lot Size 3000 SF Construction Costs $175/sf Units ere finery integrated into and existing neighborhood Clustered and Attached Single Family Homes Achieve Net Density Similar to Apartment Projects Single Family Detached and Attached construction Cost: $175 SF Net Density Range: 12-18 DU/acre Construction under International Residential Code (IRC). Simplified building permit review. Plans can be pre -approved. Plans do not require licensed architect or civil engineering. Limited or no parking requirements, can take advantage of on street parking. Units can be finely integrated into most neighborhoods with SF or MF zoning providing greater choice and opportunity to families. Muilti Family Consturction: • Construction CO=$ago-Sa00 per square foot - Net Density Range: M-30 DWacm Construction is governed by UBC. Projects tend to be larger 100 units or more. Require detailed civil engineering plans for utilities, access and parking. Detailed stormwater engineering plans. Geotechnical soils analysis. SEPA review and traffic impact analysis. Elevators, hallways and secondary stairway systems. Development of detailed fire protection systems and fire wall protections. More complicated appraisal and construction financing costs. Significantly longer development timelines and construction phase interest expense. Limited to high density MF zones in high land cost areas. Exhibit 13. Estimated Housing Unit Capacity by Income Percent AMI Allocated TOTAL and Special Housing Surplus or Units Housing Housing Need Capacity Deficit Requiring Income Level Needs (Units) (Units) (Units) Subsidies Extremely Low 0-30%PSH 1353 1.380 141 (1,239) (1,239) Extremely Low 0 - 30% Other 4966 4,713 141 (4,572) (4,572) Very Low > 30- 50% 7697 2,811 1,201 (1,610) (1,610) Low > 50 - 80% 1646 378 6,467 6.088 0 Moderate > 80. 100% eel 583 1,709 1,125 0 High > 100- 120% 823 694 945 251 0 Vuv WnA , IIAW $440 s, inn 9 d71 1e7 n Source: CAI, 2025 Note: Final housing unit allocations by income band have been reduced by a total of 3, 795 units from the HAPT figures in Spokane Valley's original allocations to reflect permitted units in projects built since 2020, per Department of Commerce guidance. Note 2: The projections assume that the entirety of housing units for 0-3096 income will require subsidies, Incentives or other measures. Similarly, the above projections assume a portion of units in the 30-50% income bend will be produced bythe market and additional subsldyls required to produce the necessary units. Supportive Housing The 2023 update to the comprehensive plan process stipulates that housing unit inventory include projections for housing units by income level as well as emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing. It also must identify sufficient capacity of land forgovernment-assisted housing, group homes and foster care facilities. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is defined by the State legislature as subsidized, leased housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and living with a disabling condition.' PSH is a long-term housing solution and is included in housing need projections as a subset of 0-30%AMI income band. Emergency housing meanwhile is defined as temporary accommodations for households experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of becoming homeless.' The capacity for emergency housing Is evaluated Independently from that for permanent housing. Group homes, while not defined by legislation, are commonly defined as residential environments for people with mental or physical disabilities, such as adult family homes."Foster care facilities, or foster family ' RC W.3e.070.030 bld ' MSRC, Gicup Homes Spoknur 0ff4rr Bank otAnrzdca I4nrnaat Cerra 601 W. RlvenW. Sake 1900 Spalane, WaAiagwn 99101-0695 Phan. 1509) 838 6131 Fxo(509)838-14% oebtita...%b..oaeohru.eam Elizabeth Tellessen eatGDwinstoneashall.com April 2, 2026 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Via Email to Council Members vim" 14 g�"W L A W Y E R S A Ponfnrionrtl Servirr Cerparnlian Irgmron f Ckd oI., ff,,r is Speknnr, Irarki„gmu old eNur d'Akrn, /A W Re: City of Spokane Valley — Housing Allocation Discrepancy in 2026-2046 Comprehensive Plan Update Dear City of Spokane Valley City Council: We represent Greenstone Corporation, which has requested our assistance in pointing out a procedural and legal concern regarding the housing allocation used by the City of Spokane Valley ("the City") in its 2026-2046 comprehensive plan. Growth planning under the Growth Management Act ("GMA' is an inherently complex and collaborative undertaking, requiring coordination among the county, municipalities, regional committees, and the public. The integrity of the planning process depends on transparency, consistency, and adherence to formally adopted frameworks. The GMA places particular importance on public participation and on the orderly coordination of planning assumptions across jurisdictions. See RCW 36.70A.020(11); RCW 36.70A.070. This aids the community in evaluating whether plans are consistent with the adopted cuunlywide framework and with the statutory requirements governing comprehensive planning. The GMA also specifically requires a quantitative analysis of how the county and municipalities will serve the population and housing allocations made for the 20-year planning period. RCW 36.70A. 110(2), .115(1), .215(3). In this regard, we find the housing -share allocation currently being used by the City differs from the population -share allocation adopted by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (`BOCC"). (Res, 25-0033) Based on the records available it appears the City's housing -share allocation has not been adopted consistently with the GMA or guidance from the Department of Commerce.' This raises questions about the legal basis for the allocation, land capacity and housing analyses, and ultimately the City's comprehensive plan. We request reconciliation of the housing allocation so that the County and members of the public can meaningfully understand and evaluate the assumptions underlying the planning process, and ensure the comprehensive plan complies with the GMA and adequately plans for future growth. Absent a reconciliation through the proper process the comprehensive plan could he subject of appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board ("GMHB"). See RCW 36.70A.330. t Fndhemsore, bernnse the allocation may be in dirert contravention of slate legislation and the countywide planning policies, the possibility also exists that the Governor could exercise the sanction powers it is granted under the GMA to resolve this issue. See RCW 36.70A.340. Beverly L Anderson Hannah M. Jonas Dalton J. Reynelds Cuurbrey B. Whitten '° Carl E. Hatter Patrick J. Cronin " Collette C. Leland'" Gabrielle C. Roth NaneyL, berths Damn M. Daie.irt.- Christine M. Meegan Ehaaberh A. Tellessen '^ Ofce, Richard W. Relyea sent, A. Ging.-- Anm K. O'Qtinn Christina Vogel n C. MMthew Andersen '° JettyR. Re, hlichnelT Howard'' Baganua H. RawofP'° Zad.ary M. Walls '° KevinI Cuais Lueivias. Whaley Arl /myersndnuneAks WA. LmyersndneineAln ID, MT, nnANYaainAinre2 April 2, 2026 Page 2 To aid clarity and understanding of the issue below is a timeline of events resulting in the City's allocative baseline being different from the BOCC's adopted allocation and why this ought to be resolved prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan. 1. Adopted Methodology vs. Applied Allocations'l'Imeline The BOCC adopted the preliminary countywide population project of 654,665 on March 26, 2024. (Res. 24-0180). A "first round" allocation population growth (100,065 rota] for Spokane County) was then adopted, allotting 20,913 to the City. (Res. 24-0348) On January 21, 2025, the BOCC adopted Resolution 25-0033, formally approving the "Method A Prime" HAPT methodology for converting the population allocations to housing allocations for the 2026-2046 planning period ("housing allocation'). See Exhibit A. The resolution expressly attaches the Planning Technical Advisory Committee ("PTAC") September 16, 2024, memorandum, which notices housing allocations derived from population growth share inputs ("population -share allocation"). The City was allocated 15,713 housing units under Method A Prime. See id. At the January 29, 2025, Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) meeting, PTAC presented a recommendation suggesting that the housing allocations could be based on "housing growth share" rather than the "population growth share" adopted by the BOCC. This is the specific recommendation from PTAC to SCEO: Following a review of the data and the HAPT itself, the PTAC recommends that the region use housing growth share as the input for the HAPT, specifically a housing growth share created by applying the same assumptions built into the HAPT tool itself to convert the adopted population share to housing share. See Exhibit R, al 1. PTAC then produced a revised set of allocations based oil housing shares (`housing -share allocation") and presented a side -by -side comparison showing substantial and, in many cases, dramatic changes between the population -share allocation and housing -share allocation. See Exhibit B, at 3, 4. In this iteration the City was allocated 16,661 units, a modest increase in the units that need to be provided over the next 20 years. See id. Critically, the housing -share allocations identified in the January 2025 PTAC recommendation were never subject to public review or comment and were not formally adopted by either the SCEO or the BOCC. How the City has utilized the adopted population -share allocation or the PTAC housing -share allocation is not apparent from its Land Capacity Analysis (2025), which concludes an ability to accommodate only 6,121 dwelling units and 14,405 residents. See Spokane Valley Land CatoacitvAnalvsis. Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials Review Draft, at 12 (hereinafter "LCA"); see also Director of Die Stale Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3-0017, Final Decision and Order, (Mar. 8, 2004), at 20-22 (holding that the land capacity analysis is a vital componcnl of the work (hat must be shown during comprehensive planning). To confuse the matter further the Housing Element Update Summary, March 16, 2026, indicates that the residential capacity was revaluated "under recent middle housing legislation" and concludes the City is now planning to deliver 12,866 housing units (March 2026 housing -share allocation) .2 It is troubling Thai the Cily's and PTAC recommendations have not engendered more concern from the planning staff as the City seems to be planning to underserve its housing allocation, which will undoubtedly impact the City's ability to provide adequate housing for its growing population as required by HB I110 and 1220. c Initial search nfreadily available hdormalion did ant reveal the "Spokane Valley Land Capacity Anatyles, 2026; CAI, 2026" apparently relied upon for this change, kading In the presumption that this analysis has ant been shared will, Spokane County m the SCEO for consideration in the roun ywide planning. April 2, 2026 Page 3 2, Conflict with the GMA's Public Participation Mandate The GMA requires a comprehensive Plan that is a "coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body." RCW 36.70A.030(4). The statute requires public participation as part of Ihis coordination. RCW 36.70A.020(11), .070, and .140. RCW 36.70A.020(I1) identifies 'citizen participation and coordination" as one of the Act's guiding principles, directingjurisdiclions to "encourage the involvement of eilizens in the planning process, including the participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities." See also Citizens for Good Governmrce v. Walla Walla County, BWGMHR Case No. 05- 010013 (June 15, 2006) ("public participation is the heart and soul of the UMA."); If'ilrna v. City ofColvifle, C WUMHB Case No. 02-1-0007 (Dec. 5, 2002) ("A failure in [he public participation process undermines the very core of the GMA and the legitimacy of adopted or amended comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations."). Moreover, RCW 36.70A.035 directs that when a change is considered, "after the opportunity far review and comment has passed... an opporhmity for review and content on the proposed change shalt be provided before the local legislative body votes on the proposed change." Further, each plan must include "p)pulation densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth." RCW 36.70A.070(1). 'Thus, "population growth predictions are the foundation of effective long-term comprehensive planning...Y Spokane Cny. v. F. WashingtrnI Growth Algmt. Hearings Bd., 198 We. App. 467, 485, 353 P.3d 680, 688 (2015). "Population growth is a fundamental consideration in making long-range land use planning decisions.... Indeed, all key planning decisionsincluding those involving public facilities and services, residential and commercial zoning, road and highway design, and landfill placement, to name only a few —arc contingent on the number of people that must be accommodated during the planning cycle." Id. at 486. Thus, the City's reliance on the March 2026 housing -share allocation seems misplaced since it was not the subject of meaningful public review or comment or approved by the BOCC, which is inconsistent with the UMA. Cf. Spokane Crry., 188 Wn. App. at 487. This is a substantial modification to the assumptions underlying the comprehensive plan and therefore requires an opportunity for public review and comment. See to.; RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a). Absent such review, the City's housing -share allocation undermines the GMA's fundamental attributes ofpnblic participation and adequate planning for a growing population. RCW 36.70A,035(2)(a); RCW 36.70A.070. See e.g., Brenton Grp. v. JeffersonC ijo, 159 Wit. App. 446, 466, 245 P.3d 789 (2011). 3. Conflict with the CMA's Joint Planning Requirement In enacting the GMA, there was n `legislative awareness that land is scarce, land use decisions are largely permanent, and, in particularly in urban areas, land use decision affect ... entire communities." Frickean & Associates, Inc. v. AlcLerrat, 123 Wn.2d 864, 876, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). Thus, embedded within the planning goal of public participation is the additional requirement that planning jurisdictions "ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." RCW 36.70A.020(1 I ); RCW 36.70A. 100; see also Diehl v. Mason Cray., 94 Wit. App. 645, 654, 972 P.2d 543, 547 (1999) (holding that because the population projections used by Mason County and by the City of Shelton are different, the Board's order of reentering negotiations was proper under the GMA); Thurston Cngt. v. IN. Washington Growth Alcmt. Hearings Bd, 158 Wn. App. 263, n. 5, 240 P.3d 1203 (2010) (noting that county and city comprehensive plans need to he eonsislen[ tvnh each other In order to ensure harmonious land use planning, and thus the fact that the population projections in the Join[ Plan and the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent is a separate issue under the GMA) (citations omitted). The City's reliance on its March 2026 housing-shm'e allocation, rather than the 15,713-uni[ population -share allocation formally adopted by the BOCC, creates a material inconsistency with the countywide planning framework. Tire currently available Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County indicate thatjoint planning is needed for any planning issue that is inlerjinisdictional in nature. See April 2, 2026 Page 4 C t ntinvlde Planning Policies for Stisokarre C Iv ProposedAmendesenis donuari, 29 2025, at 7; see also King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wrl 161, 979 P.2d 374 (1999) (holding CPPs as binding on cities, and that these policies create enforceable coordination obligations). Where a city applies an allocation that differs from the county's adopted baseline, the resulting plan is not coordinated within the meaning of the GMA. Cf. Dield, 94 Wn. App. at 654. Absent formal joint reconsideration, the City's approach risks producing a comprehensive plan inconsistent with countywide policies unit therefore legally vulnerable based on a lack of joint planning.' 4. Conflict with Commerce Guidance The Washington State Department of Commerce has issued guidance describing how counties and cities should idenlify and allocate projected housing needs when updating comprehensive plans under GMA. See Commerce, Establishing Housing Rwitets for your Commusatr Book I, at 59-75 (2023). That guidance sets forth recommended practices and minimum standards intended to ensure that housing need projections are coordinated acrossjurisdictions and applied consistently during the planning process. Commerce explains that once jurisdictions determine anticipated population growth over the next twenty years, based on OFM projections and applied through the RAPT, the next step is to divide the countywide housing needs between the cities, towns and unincorporated county. See to. Commerce mcommends that this allocation occur through a coordinated regional process involving the county and par icipalingjm isdictions. Specifically, "Commerce recommends that counties allocate projected housing needs using a similar process as the locally established process to allocate population targets, working in consultation with cities and towns." Id. This coordinated process ensures that jurisdictions rely upon consistent assumptions when conducting land capacity analyses and developing housing elements for their comprehensive plans. Commerce also establishes minimum standards governing how projected housing needs must be documented. Among them, "allocations must be consistent with any relevant countywide planning policies or multicounly planning policies that address housing." Id. In addition, `the allocation of housing needs to each local jurisdiction and the sum of housing needs to all jurisdictions should be documented in a public - facing summary document at the countywide level prior to the periodic update," such as an addendum in countywide planning policies or a resolution adopted by participatingjurisdielions. Id. Here, the BOCC adopted Resolution 25-0033 approving the "Method A Prime" methodology and allocating 15,713 housing units (o (he City for 2026-2046. In reliance on the March 2026 housing -share allocation the City reduced its allocation to 12,866 units without meaningful public paitieitimion in this change and in contravention ofCo nmerce's guidance. 5. Conclusion and Requested Action The public record reflects two materially different housing allocations: (1) the population -share allocation formally adopted by the BOCC through Resolution 25-0033, and (2) a March 2026 housing - share allocation without meaningful public notice or comment, or adoption by either the SCEO or the BOCC. The City's reliance on the March 2026 housing -share allocation we think is in error. We request the City use the approved allocation of 15,713 units or coordinate with Spokane County to ensure public 'The lack of meaningful joint planning between Spokane County and other municipalities (including the City), is evident in the fact that there is not a consistent housing allocation being used by the municipalities: Cheney relied on the population -share allocation (2,535) rather than the housing -share allocation (2,076); Mfloe.d relied on the housing -share allocation (106) rather than the population -sham allocation (36); City of Sp.k.. mmlyzcd land capacity only against population allocations; explicitly staling the Final housing allocation remained unresolved, and relying on HAPT Method C; and City of Airway Heights has mlicd on the housing -share allocation of3,955 units instead of the population -share allocation of 5,007 uuils. April 2, 2026 Page 5 pail icipalion in the housing allocation as well as consistency in the application of the same prior to adoption of the City's comprehensive plan. Very truly yours, � t P.nclasures cc: Jim Frank, Oreenstone Corporation City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Scott Chesney, Spokane County Planning Director Steering Committee of Elected Officials Michael Cathcart, City of Spokane Councilman At French, Spokane County Commissioner Albert Tripp, City of Spokane Valley Joel White, Spokane Home Builders Michelle Garden, Habitat for Humanity Spokane NO. 25-0033 -- BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERING THE SPOKANE COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS (SCEO) RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE HOUSING FOR ALL PLANNING TOOL (RAPT) METHODOLOGY FOR HOUSING ALLOCATIONS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafler referred to as the "Board," has the care of county property and the management of county funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70.040 RCW, the Board has created a Planning Department, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," and a Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" (Resolution No. 76-698 as amended by Resolution 23-0057); and WHEREAS, pursumrt to RCW 36, 70A.210, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials ("Steering Committee") was established by interlocal agreement (Resolution 1994A686, and as amended thereafter from time to time) to assist in the development of the Countywide Planning Policies and perform other duties, including but not limited to providing recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the same; and WHEREAS, the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC), consisting of technical staff from the various jurisdictions, is tasked with providing a report and recommendation to the Steering Committee on proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County on November 5, 2001 (Board Resolutions I-1059 and 1-1060), which has been thereafter amended from lime to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, the Board, on May 25, 2004, under Spokane County Resolution No. 04-0461, adopted a new Zoning Code to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, said regulation becoming effective June 1, 2004, which has been thereafter amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, the county must review and update its comprehensive plan and development regulations every ten years, with the next update due by 2026; and WHEREAS, SCEO held a public hearing on the proposed "A Prime" H"I' methodology on 9/25/24 and considered comments from the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). No public comment or testimony in favor of or against the proposed methodology was received; and WHEREAS, after deliberation, the Steering Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Spokane County "A Prime" HAFT methodology foruse in each constituent's 2026 comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70 A, the county and the cities within it must update (heir comprehensive Exhibit A plans based on a countywide population for the 20-year planning period as projected by the Office of Financial Management; and WHEREAS, as the regional government, the county is tasked with the adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies, a part of which includes the adoption of the Countywide Population Projection as well as sub -allocations of population to the cities within the county; and WHEREAS, the Spokane County planning commission held workshops examining HAFT on 6/ 13/24 and 7111/24; and WHEREAS, SCEO held workshops examining HAPT on 5115124, 7/17/12 and 8120/24; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners received the SCEO recommendation on January 14", 2025, and set January 21", 2025, to consider the same; and WHEREAS, at the January 21", 2025, open public meeting the Board considered the recommendation of the SCF.O, and the Department filed and voted on whether to adopt the same. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board herby adopts the "A Prime" RAPT methodology for the purpose of allocating housing units for the planning period of 2026- 2046. PASSED AND ADOPTED this Z/ sr day of sTQ2025. �F 60MM/�i b°NecoU o BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS f, ti•. yM m,h OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON •i ATTEST: rb4;gHE CpO Mary u ,Chair Vona Vasquez, Clerk of the Board MiLz�- Al French, Commissioner Amber Waldref, Commissioner cl Chris Jordan, Commisner MEMORANDUM To: Steering Committee of Elected Ofticials(SCEO) From: Planning Technical Advisory Committee(PTAC1 Via: Spokane County Building and Planning Date: September 16, 2024 Re: PTAC Recommendation, Housingfor All Planning Toot methodology Background Summary Earlier this year, SCEO tasked PTAC with analyzing possible HAFT methodologies. During this exploration, PTAC analyzed: • Methods A and • Commerce's update of method A(A Prime), wherein the county's share is split between the unincorporated UGAs and rural areas. • Custom methods created by other counties (Lewis, King, Skagit, and Snohomish) o Lewis, Skagit, and Snohomish's custom methodologies were found to be not applicable to Spokane County. o King County's custom methodology served as the basis for a Spokane County proposal that was brought before PTAC and SCEO. • Two possible custom methods, including o Weighted transit • This methodology would have allocated low-income housing partially based on transit availability, • Was not carried forward, owing to a lack of support from PTAC, o lobs to housing ratio • This methodology, based on King County's custom method, adjusts 0.50% allocations based on the ratio of low-income jabs (under $40,0001 to low- income residents. • Was not carried toward, owing to a lack of support from PTAC. Options Going Forward SCEO has two options: 1. Adopt one of the base Commerce methodologies (A, A prime, or B). a. Adoption ofA prime is recommended by PTAC. 2. Continue pursuing a custom methodology(method C). a. Any potential custom method will require clear guidance from SCEO on what changes are desired. There is no readily available data to accommodate such an exploration, so it wouid likely require a significant commitment of staff time. Recommendation PTAC recommends using HAPT Method A Prime. Method A Prime uses the same assumptions and calculations as Method Abut allows for a distinction between rural County lands, unincorporated UGAa, and the incorporated jurisdictions. Additional details on this recommendation, along with the housing allocation numbers based on the current population allocation, can be found below. Methodology Pros/Cons Methotl Pros Cons A Equally distributes housing Allocates law -income and levels amongjurisdictions, emergency housing to rural areas based an growth projections; Simplicityand clarity A Prime Reserves lower -income housing None Identified by PTAC for urban areas; Avoids placing emergency housing In rural areas 8 Accounts for existing housing by Allocates low-income and allocating fewer units per emergency housing to rural areas; Income band to jurisdictions creates negative housing that have a larger share of allocations, the Implications of housing in said income band which are not well understood. than otherjurisdictions C: Low-incomejobs to Accounts for an additional What welghtto give the analysis is tow -Income residents' piece of local analysis that unknown; ratio factors in housing and Lack of support from jurisdictions; employment locations, Concerns about the amount of Identifying locations where time needed to perfect this iowerwagejobs exist but not methodology enough lower cost housing Housing Allocation Numbers (Corrected) Total Countywld. Allocation Method A Prime HousinS Allocation income Banda 0-306AMI TWO Nob -PS" PSM 30-SM 50-M 80-100% 1W1203f >120% Temporary Emer,amc, Hounkst 75,1841 19,WS 5,714 13,620 9,944 4,772 3,937 18,392 3,037 Uninco maled UGA 22,9d6 6,375 1,830 4.362 2,699 1,456 1,202 5,022 95 Rural Outside UGA 3,534 0 0 0 416 225 195 2,708 0 Alma He Is 5,007 1,391 399 952 569 318 262 1,096 212 Cherry 2,535 7M 202 482 298 161 133 555 107 Over Park 1.023 284 82 194 120 65 54 224 43 F.H.1,11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty take 6,601 1,8m 526 1,255 776 419 345 1,445 280 Medical lake 179 50 14 34 21 it 9 40 8 Millwood 36 10 3 7 4 2 2 8 2 Rockford 53 15 4 10 6 3 3 12 2 Spa . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane ICItyl 17,550 4,875 1,4W 3,336 2,066 1,115 919 3,840 7" Slacken. Valley 15,713 4,365 1,253 2,987 1,848 997 823 3,440 666 W.v. 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 Note: Jurisdictions are NOT required to ensure that these units are built. They must simply have zoning, regulations and development codes that allow these units to be built. Housing Allocation Numbers (Original) TotalOmntywke Allocation Method A Prime Housing Allo allon Income Bands LL304AMI Total Non-MH PSM 30-50% 50�80% 86100% 1001W!4 >120% Temporary Emer ency Hcud 75,184 19,905 5,714 13,620 8.844 4.772 3,937 18,464 3,037 Unlncorpoaled UGA 22,946 61375 1,830 4,362 2,09 1.456 1,202 5,022 973 Rural DUUIde UGA 3,534 0 0 0 416 225 185 2.7" 0 Airway Moshe 5,007 1,391 399 952 589 316 262 1,05 212 CMn 2,535 7M 202 482 298 161 133 555 107 We Park 1,023 284 82 194 120 65 54 224 43 F.IHIeIE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1ansh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Ube"take 6,601 1,834 526 1,255 776 419 346 11445 280 Medlollake 179 50 14 34 21 11 9 40 8 Millwood 36 10 3 7 4 2 2 8 2 Rockord 53 15 4 30 5 3 3 12 2 SP NI. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokamrianyl 17,550 4,875 1,400 3,336 2,066 1,115 918 3,840 744 5 lone Vall 15,713 4365 1253 2,997 IMH 997 $23 3.440 666 W..Iv 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 Note: These numbers, which were Included in the original staff report, contain small errors that Incorrectly represent the current HAPT allocation. These errors have been corrected in the table on the top of this page. SPOKANE COUNTY STEERING COATMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS 1026 w Hwadrcay • Spokaac WA 992W.0170. 509.477. i 500 - bphclpCi.spukanucounty.urg December 17, 2024 Mary Kuney, Chair Spokane County Board of County Commissioners 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Steering Committee of Elected Officials Recommendation for the 2026-2046 Spokane County Housing for All Planning Tool (RAPT) methodology Chair Kuney and Commissioners, As required by the Spokane County Tnterlocal Agreement titled Growth Management Act (GMA Joint Planning) Section 3 D, I am forwarding the recommendation of the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) regarding the adoption of the Spokane County Housing for All Planning Tool (RAPT) methodology for the planning period of 2026-2046 for use by the County and constituent communities in planning for future growth and housing allocations under the GMA. The SCEO held a public hearing an the proposed amendment on September 25, 2024, and considered comments from the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). There was no public comment or testimony in favor of or against the proposed amendment. After deliberation, the Steering Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Spokane County 2026-2046 HAPT methodology. Sincerely, Al French, Commissioner of Spokane County, Chair, Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials Submit to Clerk of the Board with availahle supporting materials (Resolutions, Agreements, Presentations, etc.) AGENDA SHEET SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT: Building & Planning CONTACT PERSON. Scott Chesney, Laurie Carver PHONE, NUMBER: 477-7212, 509-477-7127 CHECK TYPE OF MEETING BELOW.' ® Regular Legislative Session Agenda BELOW FOR CLERK'SLrr5 USE ONLY: Clerk's ResaInfirm No. -0 033 Approved: Majority/tinanimous Denied: Majurity/Unanimnus Renews/Amends No. Public Works No. Purchasing Dept. No. AGENDA TITLE (please Provide a reasonably descrioilve agenda tide for this item: Consider the SCEO Recommendation for the Housing for all Planning Tool Methodology (RAPT) DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY (please Provide anliciaaled fiscal and budgetary information & reason for request): On September 25, 2024, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials voted to adopt HAPT method A -Prime based on the Planning Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Method A -Prime allocates housing units based primarily on the share of growth eachjurisdiction is projected to receive. FISCAL IMPACT (please provide am0puted fiscal and hudeetary impact with amount and source q(unds applicable): NA REQUESTED BOARD ACTION (if any), Other County Departments Impacted -List any other departments that were notified in advance of this agenda item: Legal This Item will need to he codified in the Spokane County Code: No Recommendation for RAPT: Housing Share PLANNING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report and Recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials Periodic Update under the Growth Management Act, 2026 to 2046 Written and Recommended by PTAC, January 2025 Exhibit B Executive Summary The Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) has identified a possible issue with previous runs of the "ousingfor All Planning Tool (HAPT), which all communities planning underthe Growth Management Act have been advised to use when allocating housing by affordability for the region. The intended input for the tool —the data that Is provided to the tool and then used to calculate each jurisdictions' housing allocation —is the share of housing growth each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate. Unfortunately, due to unclear instructions, the previous "APT outputs shared with the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) used the share of population growth instead. Following a review of the data and the HAPT itself, the PTAC recommends that the region use housing growth share as the Input for the RAPT, specifically a housing growth share created by applying the same assumptions built into the HAPT tool itself to convert the adopted population share to housing share. Of note, this recommendation does not affect which method within HAFT is utilized. The existing SCEO recommendation for the method known as "A Prime' is not affected by PTACs recommendation in this memo. The full output of the HAPT, assuming that housing share generated in the way recommended by PTAC is used, is attached to the end of this memo. Introduction Following the SCEO vote to recommend Method "A Prime" when using the HAPT, the members of PTAC identified that there had been some confusion as to which inputs should be provided to the HAPT when calculating housing share. As a result, PTAC's Housing Subcommittee met several times in the third and fourth quarters of 2024 to consider how this might affect the housing allocation output from HAPT. In essence, it appears to PTAC that the HAPT was intended to be provided with the share of housing growth each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate, while previous use of the HAPT utilized the share of population growth instead. After discussing this at length, PTAC has developed a method for converting the currently adopted Population Share' to housing growth share, which can then be input into HAPT. This memo outlines the recommendation by PTAC for doing this, and provides the summary growth numbers for each jurisdiction that results. HAPT Method A Prime At their meeting on September 25, 2024, the SCEOvoted to recommend the use of the "A Prime" method in the HAPT. Throughout this discussion and recommendation by PTAC, no change to this method is anticipated or recommended. PTAC feels that SCEO's original recommendatim adopted on September 24, 2024, does not require revision to accommodate PTAC's recommendations herein. ' Adopted by OOCC Resolution 24-0348 on June 18, 2024. Page I 1 Housing Share versus Population Share When PTAC and SCEO previously saw the "A Prime" results, it was always using the share of population growth assigned to each jurisdiction per the adopted allocation'. However, after multiple conversations within PTAC and with Commerce staff, it was apparent that the Instructions in HAPT were unclear and that the tool was instead asking for the share of housing growth. The share of population growth and the share of housing growth are directly related to each other, but due to certain factors they are rarely the same number for a given jurisdiction. For instance, household size (people per household) in each jurisdiction is not the same nor does it stay static over time. Household size is continually changing from year to year. Furthermore, somejurisdictions contain a larger amount of group quarters housing (i.e. college dorms, prisons, treatment centers) and that rate changes over time. Those living in group quarters do not require additional housing units, thus they must be subtracted from the overall population growth share for each jurisdiction. Because of these factors, it is important to develop a share of housing each jurisdiction for the entirety of the planning horizon (through 2046), not just today. Jurisdictions differ from each other and some attempt to differentiate their allocations accordingly should be made as well. A Note on the Underproduction of Housing An additional factor has been raised by public commenters and PTAC members that is worth discussing here. That factor is the known historic underproduction of housing statewide. Commerce's research has made it clear that development in Jurisdictions across the state have been lower than what is required to house existing populations. As a result, many Jurisdictions' current housing stock is already too small to accommodate the need of the existing population, not to mention the growth that is coming. It is Important to note that HAPT factors this underproduction into its results. Accordingly, the number of housing units a jurisdiction may be allocated when using HAFT will appear high when compared to population growth. This is specifically because HAPT attempts to also allocate sufficient housing to accommodate the recent underproduction of housing as well as future growth. This condition is true regardless of which input is used for HAFT. Determining Housing Share The Department of Commerce has not provided Jurisdictions with a method for calculating housing growth share. Likewise, GMA does not mandate that Cities and Counties use a particular method to develop housing share. However, the PTAC subcommittee found that the HAPT itself provides one possible method. While PTAC spent considerable time exploring other ways to convert population growth to housing growth, ultimately PTAC felt that because the resulting housing share would be input Into HAFT, it was most defensible to use the assumptions already built Into HAFT to calculate housing share. That way, the same set of assumptions would be applied to all parts of the tool and any unintentional bias or modification of results would be minimized. ' Adopted by BOOC Resolution 24-0348 on June 13, 2024. Page 12 EssentlaIly, the housing share for each jurisdiction would be calculated directly from the population share already adopted by the BOCC. While It is more sophisticated than can be expressed simply here, the method for calculating housing share from population share is generally' as follows: [(Population Share -Group Quarters Population) / Household Size] 4 694 to Account for Vacant Homes For the purposes of the HAPT, the tool assumes that household size is shrinking overtime and that each jurisdiction will see the same share of group housing in the County as they are in 2020. The resulting housing share for each jurisdiction and area Is as shown in the following table. Again, when considering the resulting housing share, the following should be kept in mind: • Population share and housing share are not the same thing, though they are related to one another. • Housing share in the tool is somewhat elevated to account for historic underproduction of housing. Table 1: Population and Housing Share Compared Share: Share: Share: Share: - Population Housing Population Housing Jurisdiction Growth Growth Jurisdiction ' Growth Growth y Spokane County (Whole) 100.00% 100.00% Airway Heights 6.66% 5.26% All Unincorporated Areas 35.21 % 31.14% Cheney 3.37% 2.76% Unincorporated Rural 4.70% 8.24% Deer Park 1.36% 1.44% Unincorporated UGA 30.51% 22.81 % Fairfield 0.00% 0.00% Incorporated County 64.79% 68.95% Latah 0.00% 0.00% Liberty Lake 8.78% 6.89% Medical Lake 0.24% 0.44% Millwood 0.05% 0.14% Rockford 0.07% 0.09% Spangle 0.00% 0.02% Spokane 23.34% 29.74% Spokane Valley 20.90% 22.16% Waverly 0.01% 0.02% As shown in the table, when comparing population share to housing share, some jurisdictions are expected to accommodate a lower share of housing growth than population growth (e.g. Liberty Lake) while others are shown to expect a higher share of housing than population (e.g. the City of Spokane). Why this happens is complex and due to the fact that HAPT uses multiple factors from multiple sources to determine these amounts. Because the HAPT only has one input for each jurisdiction -share of housing growth -those jurisdictions where the housing share is larger than population share can expect their housing number output from HAPT to Increase when compared to the sample outputs discussed by SCEO previously. Conversely, 'The assumptions in HAM are more sophisticated than this, accounting for changes over time and each jurisdiction's share of certain values. Replication of the numbers herein by using this simplified equation should not be considered when evaluating this recommendation. Page 13 jurisdictions with smaller housing share than population share can expect their HAPT output to decrease over earlier results. Comparing HAPT Results from Prior Versions and Now As a handy comparison of how overall housing allocations would change when housing share Table 2: Comparison of HAPT Total Housing by Jurisdiction is input into HAPT rather than population Total New Units share, the table at right lists the total housing _ Change if Using using Using allocation using both Inputs. Also shown Is Pop Housing Housing whetherthetotal housing units would increase Jurisdiction Share Share Share or decrease for each jurisdiction when using Unincorporated Rural 3,534 6,195 Higher housing share, as the tool intended. Unincorporated UGA 22,946 17,142 Lower While housing share is the intended input for Airway Heights 5,007 3,955 Lower HAPT, using housing share would Increase the Cheney 2,535 2,076 Lower housing allocation to the rural areas (outside Deer Park 1,023 1,083 Higher the UGA). To a greater degree, the larger Fairfield 0 0 Higher jurisdictions would also be subject to a larger Latch 0 0 Higher allocation. Liberty Lake 6,601 5,180 Lower Medical Lake 179 329 Higher It's important to notethatwhile this represents Millwood 36 106 Higher a large change for some jurisdictions, increased Rockford 53 68 Higher allocations to those communities in the center Spangle 0 15 Higher of the UGA (CityofSpokane, Spokane Valley) is Spokane 17,550 22,359 Higher consistent with the requirements of GMA, Spokane Valley 15,713 16,661 Higher wherein growth should be concentrated in the Waverly 7 15 Higher UGA and limited on the edges. While the allocation for unincorporated rural areas would be more than 314 larger, that increase would be spread throughout a very large area (all parts of the County outside the UGA), tempering the effects of that growth somewhat. Furthermore, urban scale services to those additional homes would not he required due to their location. PTAC Recommendations: Housing Share and HAPT Following multiple discussions on the differences between population share and housing share, PTAC generally feels that housing share, created using the same assumptions already built into the HAPT, is the most defensible and effective input for the HAPT. The following benefits of using housingshare discussed were as follows: • The assumptions used to generate housing share from population share are Identical to those in the HAPT now. • The HAPT model is sophisticated —an adjustment in one variable can have unintended consequences. • The data used togenerate housingshare have already been considered and adopted by the BOCC. Page 14 Final Results If the share of housing growth indicated in Table 1 In Input Into the HAPT, and the method previously described as Method A Prime in the SCEO recommendation is utilized, then the final housing allocation shown in the attached spreadsheet is provided. Page 15 | §nil { ! � ; �5. [ ! ; T [W J °ƒ 7 �ƒ k ,.,.,,1,-..,._.,�.,.. �{k . �I/�"�991 QI � ■ i!! (: !` 7mTmew