Spokane County Planning staff on Monday told residents at a virtual open house that county projections show a need for about 6,200 housing units in rural areas by 2046, but emphasized that that number reflects needs and shortages rather than identified capacity to accommodate that growth.

The county’s presentation, led by Scott Chesney of Spokane County Planning, explained that the Department of Commerce “Housing for All” allocation and the Office of Financial Management population projection drive a planning target used to calculate unit needs. Chesney said the housing tool accounts for existing shortages, which helps explain why the unit total exceeds the near‑term population increase shown in OFM projections.

Why this matters: The county must identify where housing growth could occur while complying with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and protecting resource lands, critical areas and groundwater. Residents pressed planners to tie the needs assessment to a robust capacity analysis, note current contamination and groundwater issues on the West Plains, and prioritize reuse of vacant commercial and industrial properties before expanding development into rural parcels.

Staff framed the rural‑lands discussion around Spokane County’s planning categories: Rural Traditional (about 1 dwelling per 10 acres), Rural Conservation (about 1 per 20 acres), Urban Reserve (large parcels held for potential future urbanization), and Rural Activity Centers (historic crossroads intended as small economic hubs). Chesney said those designations, and the county’s existing comprehensive plan policies, will be reviewed in a rural element chapter audit that will inform the environmental impact statement (EIS) and any future policy changes.

On environmental constraints, staff highlighted PFAS contamination on the West Plains and noted differing aquifer systems across the county, including paleo‑channel features that affect groundwater transmission. Chesney said the county is updating its critical‑areas work and will fold findings into the EIS so planners can better understand where growth is feasible without harming groundwater or wildlife corridors.

Public commenters told planners they worry the county’s materials conflate “need” with “capacity.” Julia, a West Plains resident, said the presentation described a housing need but did not show maps of where the land could carry that growth and said many apparently vacant rural parcels provide groundwater recharge, grazing and other uses. She urged the county to pursue reuse of vacant commercial and industrial space — citing the Spokane Valley Mall area and other underused properties — before proposing spread into rural lands.

Planners responded that the housing figures are the state‑provided needs allocation and that a separate county capacity analysis and EIS will examine which parcels could actually take development once critical areas, infrastructure and service concurrency are analyzed. Chesney said updates to the county’s critical‑areas ordinance and a countywide chapter audit are underway; planners plan to post materials and maps on the county website and on the department’s YouTube channel.

The presentation also covered agritourism and the legal constraints counties face when allowing event uses on agricultural land. Chesney cited a Washington case involving winery tasting‑room expansions that the Growth Management Hearings Board and the courts found had not adequately considered whether the changes degraded agricultural character — a legal precedent planners said they must consider if agritourism expansion is permitted in farming areas.

A final planning note: staff said the county will use the EIS alternatives to study concurrency — whether roads, water, sewer, schools and emergency services can serve proposed growth — and to refine where the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary should allow higher‑density development. The county’s next planning commission meeting will discuss UGAs and the EIS alternatives.

Planners encouraged residents to review posted slides and the recorded meeting on the county’s YouTube channel and said they will continue public outreach as the rural element audit and EIS move forward.

Ending: The county did not adopt policy changes at the session; staff described the meeting as an informational open house and said formal decisions will follow further analysis and public comment as the EIS and chapter audit progress.