As I understand it, the City of Spokane intends to eliminate Environmental Review of developments to encourage infill in ALL parts of the city. This Draft EIS will guide our city’s growth for the foreseeable future and as written does not support our overall goals for our city. Spokane “near nature, near perfect”. Does your plan include alternative mottos like “keep Spokane kinda gross”.
1. SUPPORT TREE AND NATURAL LAND INVENTORY
Spokane has a tree canopy goal of 30% and strong support for natural land protection without adequate codes. An inventory of trees, natural areas, wildlife habitat is necessary to inform the critical areas code. The Growth Management Act requires protection of critical areas, forests, habitat and natural lands.
2. Support an enforceable critical areas ordinance is required to protect critical areas, trees, habitat, water quality, etc. There are unprotected natural lands throughout the City as shown in Exhibit 3.3-3 (See photo).
3. Oppose the blanket Environmental Review exemption in order to protect critical areas such as wetlands, forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas in neighborhoods. Exhibit 7 (See photo) shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases.
4. Suport environmental review exemption only if 100% disturbed and impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3 (See photo). Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces included below.
5. Support the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board’s recommended Policy Land Use & Zoning 2-4 [“Protect, restore, acquire, and maintain urban agricultural lands, urban forests, critical areas, shorelines, habitats, and open spaces as interconnected natural systems that provide flood protection, heat reduction, and carbon sequestration benefits, including through codes, capital investments, and regional partnerships.”]
As a property owner and taxpayer, I do not want to sacrifice every single bit of nature, green, wetland, tree canopy, and animal habitat in favor of development. Where is the mindfulness of all of our goals for our city? Infill is not and should not be our only focus, it in fact will sacrifice our other longstanding goals and commitments. Very shortsighted in my opinion. I am not against all development, but I am against there being zero thought regarding environmental impact of development.
Jodie Davis
Feb 18, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 1]
RE: PlanSpokane 2046 draft EIS Comments
As I understand it, the City of Spokane intends to eliminate Environmental Review of developments to encourage infill in ALL parts of the city. This Draft EIS will guide our city’s growth for the foreseeable future and as written does not support our overall goals for our city. Spokane “near nature, near perfect”. Does your plan include alternative mottos like “keep Spokane kinda gross”.
1. SUPPORT TREE AND NATURAL LAND INVENTORY
Spokane has a tree canopy goal of 30% and strong support for natural land protection without adequate codes. An inventory of trees, natural areas, wildlife habitat is necessary to inform the critical areas code. The Growth Management Act requires protection of critical areas, forests, habitat and natural lands.
2. Support an enforceable critical areas ordinance is required to protect critical areas, trees, habitat, water quality, etc. There are unprotected natural lands throughout the City as shown in Exhibit 3.3-3 (See photo).
3. Oppose the blanket Environmental Review exemption in order to protect critical areas such as wetlands, forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas in neighborhoods. Exhibit 7 (See photo) shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases.
4. Suport environmental review exemption only if 100% disturbed and impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3 (See photo). Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces included below.
5. Support the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board’s recommended Policy Land Use & Zoning 2-4 [“Protect, restore, acquire, and maintain urban agricultural lands, urban forests, critical areas, shorelines, habitats, and open spaces as interconnected natural systems that provide flood protection, heat reduction, and carbon sequestration benefits, including through codes, capital investments, and regional partnerships.”]
As a property owner and taxpayer, I do not want to sacrifice every single bit of nature, green, wetland, tree canopy, and animal habitat in favor of development. Where is the mindfulness of all of our goals for our city? Infill is not and should not be our only focus, it in fact will sacrifice our other longstanding goals and commitments. Very shortsighted in my opinion. I am not against all development, but I am against there being zero thought regarding environmental impact of development.
Jodie Davis