The primary focus of the EIS document seems to be on where the city will direct housing construction for the next 20 years to accommodate anticipated population growth and remedy current shortage of affordable housing.
Why does it make sense to settle on one one-size-fits-all alternative for the entire city when the 29 recognized neighborhoods that developed in different eras over the past 130 years have different existing built environments, traffic patterns, access to public amenities, terrain, infrastructure issues, and unmet needs? How can a single approach - alternative 2 or 3 - be tailored to responsibly address growth in the same way across very diverse neighborhoods?
Important aspects of managing growth beyond housing construction are not in the draft EIS:
1. The introductory letter for the draft EIS document notes that "planning for services and infrastructure (e.g., streets, storm water and parks)" is one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft document has descriptions of the current situation and a history of the development of those aspects, but there does not seem to be an actual plan for how services and infrastructure will expand to meet the needs of a larger population and a more extensive built environment.
2. Although the state has new requirements to address climate change in the Comprehensive Plan, the challenges of growing and building in a way that will protect the population, to the extent possible, from the known and significant danger of wildfires does not seem to be integrated into the draft EIS. Issues for new housing development include adequate emergency evacuation routes and the cost and availability of homeowners insurance coverage in locations where fire danger is elevated and/or response to fires does not meet insurance industry standards.
3. Water quality and runoff increases are listed as elements of analysis but I was not able to find consideration of water demand related to a growing population, and exacerbated by the expected increasing heat and drought due to climate change, addressed in the draft.
4. Related to the absence of a plan for infrastructure needs and the increasing demand for water, it seems important to state the need to prioritize maintaining the water distribution system as a preventive measure to avoid losing water to leaks.
Specific comments
After residing in the Latah Valley for 11 years, I am particularly attentive to development issues specific to the western neighborhoods of the city in the wildland-urban interface: Grandview/ Thorpe, Latah Hangman, and West Hills.
Both of the proposed action alternatives are expected to result in "more growth in Latah/ Hangman neighborhood on vacant land". See table on page 3-121 of the draft EIS. In recent years there has also been significant interest from developers in land in the Grandview/Thorpe neighborhood.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Growth Management Act Goals listed on page 3-192 of the draft EIS include reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development, and encouraging efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capital vehicle miles traveled. Neither of these goals are supported by directing growth to Grandview/Thorpe and Latah/ Hangman neighborhoods in their present state of infrastructure development. Both areas are 100% car dependent, and many households have 3, 4, even 5 vehicles: one for every member of the household old enough to drive.
A paradigm based on hubs or "frequent transit routes" (unless this term includes driving a private vehicle on a public road) has little relevance for areas outside the older, traditional neighborhoods. Growth in the Latah Valley in recent decades has produced suburban-style bedroom communities and disconnected individual developments.
Mixed-use development was not permitted under the Centers-and-Corridors concept, so "third places" to encourage community (churches, cafes, shops, bars, clubs, gyms, bookstores, theatres) are minimal or non-existent. The livability standard of no more than a ten minute walk to a public recreation area does not exist for most residents of the Latah Valley.
There are no neighborhood schools, library, or community center. Public transportation does not serve these neighborhoods. Highways, rock formations, and railroad infrastructure interrupt what might otherwise be a network of connected local streets. Many streets that serve as local thoroughfares or arterials have not been upgraded to modern standards, i.e., they are lacking curbs, shoulders, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Railroad bridges / tunnels do not conform to national minimum height standards for vehicle clearance.
The water and wastewater systems in some areas have not been upgraded to meet the needs of additional development. The fire station serving this area is a converted house that cannot accommodate the standard array of firefighting equipment. The state Department of Transportation is gravely concerned about traffic safety on US-195 as vehicle traffic to and from new developments steadily increases.
Areas west of Latah Creek (including Grandview/Thorpe, Latah/Hangman, and West Hills neighborhoods) are connected to the downtown area by the I-90 bridge and the 115 year old Sunset Boulevard Bridge which is deteriorating and subject to weight restrictions that prevent garbage trucks and aerial fire trucks from crossing it.
The current state of the infrastructure and public services in this area demonstrates the importance of having a Comprehensive Plan that integrates infrastructure planning and implementation with housing development. As the Growth Management Act prohibits requiring developers to remedy existing deficiencies, it falls to the city to craft a plan for doing so, or to restrict development to land that is not negatively affected by these deficiencies.
Patricia Nault
[Personal contact details omitted from the reading text.]
Patricia Nault
Feb 17, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 3]
[The source PDF's first page contains only the email transmission header; it has no message body.]
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF page 2 of 3]
The primary focus of the EIS document seems to be on where the city will direct housing construction for the next 20 years to accommodate anticipated population growth and remedy current shortage of affordable housing.
Why does it make sense to settle on one one-size-fits-all alternative for the entire city when the 29 recognized neighborhoods that developed in different eras over the past 130 years have different existing built environments, traffic patterns, access to public amenities, terrain, infrastructure issues, and unmet needs? How can a single approach - alternative 2 or 3 - be tailored to responsibly address growth in the same way across very diverse neighborhoods?
Important aspects of managing growth beyond housing construction are not in the draft EIS:
1. The introductory letter for the draft EIS document notes that "planning for services and infrastructure (e.g., streets, storm water and parks)" is one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft document has descriptions of the current situation and a history of the development of those aspects, but there does not seem to be an actual plan for how services and infrastructure will expand to meet the needs of a larger population and a more extensive built environment.
2. Although the state has new requirements to address climate change in the Comprehensive Plan, the challenges of growing and building in a way that will protect the population, to the extent possible, from the known and significant danger of wildfires does not seem to be integrated into the draft EIS. Issues for new housing development include adequate emergency evacuation routes and the cost and availability of homeowners insurance coverage in locations where fire danger is elevated and/or response to fires does not meet insurance industry standards.
3. Water quality and runoff increases are listed as elements of analysis but I was not able to find consideration of water demand related to a growing population, and exacerbated by the expected increasing heat and drought due to climate change, addressed in the draft.
4. Related to the absence of a plan for infrastructure needs and the increasing demand for water, it seems important to state the need to prioritize maintaining the water distribution system as a preventive measure to avoid losing water to leaks.
Specific comments
After residing in the Latah Valley for 11 years, I am particularly attentive to development issues specific to the western neighborhoods of the city in the wildland-urban interface: Grandview/ Thorpe, Latah Hangman, and West Hills.
Both of the proposed action alternatives are expected to result in "more growth in Latah/ Hangman neighborhood on vacant land". See table on page 3-121 of the draft EIS. In recent years there has also been significant interest from developers in land in the Grandview/Thorpe neighborhood.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Growth Management Act Goals listed on page 3-192 of the draft EIS include reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development, and encouraging efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capital vehicle miles traveled. Neither of these goals are supported by directing growth to Grandview/Thorpe and Latah/ Hangman neighborhoods in their present state of infrastructure development. Both areas are 100% car dependent, and many households have 3, 4, even 5 vehicles: one for every member of the household old enough to drive.
A paradigm based on hubs or "frequent transit routes" (unless this term includes driving a private vehicle on a public road) has little relevance for areas outside the older, traditional neighborhoods. Growth in the Latah Valley in recent decades has produced suburban-style bedroom communities and disconnected individual developments.
Mixed-use development was not permitted under the Centers-and-Corridors concept, so "third places" to encourage community (churches, cafes, shops, bars, clubs, gyms, bookstores, theatres) are minimal or non-existent. The livability standard of no more than a ten minute walk to a public recreation area does not exist for most residents of the Latah Valley.
There are no neighborhood schools, library, or community center. Public transportation does not serve these neighborhoods. Highways, rock formations, and railroad infrastructure interrupt what might otherwise be a network of connected local streets. Many streets that serve as local thoroughfares or arterials have not been upgraded to modern standards, i.e., they are lacking curbs, shoulders, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Railroad bridges / tunnels do not conform to national minimum height standards for vehicle clearance.
The water and wastewater systems in some areas have not been upgraded to meet the needs of additional development. The fire station serving this area is a converted house that cannot accommodate the standard array of firefighting equipment. The state Department of Transportation is gravely concerned about traffic safety on US-195 as vehicle traffic to and from new developments steadily increases.
Areas west of Latah Creek (including Grandview/Thorpe, Latah/Hangman, and West Hills neighborhoods) are connected to the downtown area by the I-90 bridge and the 115 year old Sunset Boulevard Bridge which is deteriorating and subject to weight restrictions that prevent garbage trucks and aerial fire trucks from crossing it.
The current state of the infrastructure and public services in this area demonstrates the importance of having a Comprehensive Plan that integrates infrastructure planning and implementation with housing development. As the Growth Management Act prohibits requiring developers to remedy existing deficiencies, it falls to the city to craft a plan for doing so, or to restrict development to land that is not negatively affected by these deficiencies.
Patricia Nault
[Personal contact details omitted from the reading text.]