Grandview-Thorpe Neighborhood Council
Feb 17, 2026
Neighborhood Groups
[PDF page 1 of 3]
Dear Plan Commission and Council Members,
On behalf of the Grandview/Thorpe Neighborhood Council, we submit the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the proposed land use Alternatives 2 and 3.
We recognize the considerable effort invested in preparing the Draft EIS. However, given its length and complexity, it is essential that the City carefully consider the significant concerns raised by neighborhood representatives and community members.
1. Role of Neighborhood Councils and Community Assembly
The Draft EIS references neighborhood council boundaries but does not meaningfully incorporate neighborhood councils or the Community Assembly into the decision-making framework. These bodies are the City's formally constituted mechanisms for resident engagement on governance and land use matters.
While Neighborhood Action Plans are mentioned, many are outdated or nonexistent. We respectfully request clarification regarding how neighborhood councils will be engaged in shaping, refining, and implementing any final land use map or alternative.
2. Mechanism for Modifying Alternatives and Reaching Consensus
Both the Plan Commission and members of the public have raised concerns about Alternatives 2 and 3. We request a clear explanation of the mechanism by which these alternatives may be modified, combined, or refined into a single, consensus-based final plan.
The community deserves a transparent process that allows for thoughtful adjustment rather than a binary choice between two imperfect options.
3. Housing Need and Affordability Data
Recent 2025 studies, including the Land Capacity Analysis and Accommodating Affordable Housing reports, indicate that Spokane's housing deficit is concentrated in the 0-80% AMI category, with an estimated shortage of 4,400 units. At the same time, the City shows a surplus of approximately 6,000 units in the 80-120% AMI range and 9,000 units above 120% AMI.
Given this data, the central housing need through 2046 is affordable housing in the lower-income categories. Yet the Draft EIS appears to assume that increased private development across all income levels will inherently resolve affordability gaps. No concrete mechanisms are identified to ensure that new development will meaningfully address the 0-80% AMI shortage.
[PDF page 2 of 3]
We request clarification on how land use policy, demolition approvals, permitting, and incentives will be aligned specifically with documented affordability needs rather than generalized growth assumptions.
4. Demolition, Displacement, and Neighborhood Stability
Demolition of existing housing stock is a significant issue embedded within both Alternatives 2 and 3 but is not adequately addressed early or comprehensively in the Draft EIS.
Demolition can result in:
Displacement of lower-income residents
Reduction of homeownership opportunities
Increased reliance on rental housing
Disruption of established neighborhoods
The Draft EIS appears to assume that future anti-displacement policies and affordability measures will sufficiently mitigate these impacts. However, no evidence is provided that such measures are in place or will be effective.
We urge the City to explicitly address demolition impacts, displacement risk, and homeownership preservation in both analysis and policy recommendations.
5. Scope and Impact of Proposed Exemptions
The contemplated infill exemptions - particularly the expansion of "corridor" designations to one-half mile on each side and the suggestion that the entire city could qualify as a corridor - would dramatically alter neighborhood character across Spokane.
Such broad exemptions risk facilitating intensive, uncoordinated development within established single-family neighborhoods without adequate parking, tree preservation, or infrastructure considerations. The cumulative impact of these exemptions must be fully disclosed and carefully reconsidered.
6. Transportation, Parking, and Environmental Impacts
The Draft EIS indicates that neither alternative is expected to significantly increase transit use, with only minimal increases in active transportation. If population increases are anticipated without corresponding transit gains, personal vehicle use will likely rise.
We ask:
How will additional vehicle demand be accommodated?
Where will parking occur in areas with reduced requirements?
What strategies are in place to meaningfully reduce vehicle-related emissions?
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Additionally, the "Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources" section omits reference to the region's critical aquifer system. Given its importance to public health and environmental sustainability, this omission is concerning and warrants correction.
7. Need for Adaptive Planning Based on Current Conditions
While the plan contemplates course correction over a 20-year period, it is vital that today's realities serve as the baseline. Current population trends, housing stock conditions, family size, environmental health, displacement risks, and homeownership levels must guide responsible planning.
As currently presented, Alternatives 2 and 3 - combined with expansive infill exemptions - risk opening neighborhoods to unregulated or exploitative development patterns that may undermine community stability, environmental goals, and affordability objectives.
We do not believe this must be an either/or decision. A more thoughtful approach would integrate the strongest elements of each alternative while prioritizing environmental stewardship, neighborhood protection, and targeted affordable housing production.
The Grandview/Thorpe Neighborhood Council respectfully requests meaningful revisions to the Draft EIS and a transparent collaborative process moving forward. Our community stands ready to engage constructively in shaping a plan that meets Spokane's housing needs while preserving the integrity and livability of our neighborhoods.
Grandview-Thorpe Neighborhood Council
Feb 17, 2026
Neighborhood Groups
[PDF page 1 of 3]
Dear Plan Commission and Council Members,
On behalf of the Grandview/Thorpe Neighborhood Council, we submit the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the proposed land use Alternatives 2 and 3.
We recognize the considerable effort invested in preparing the Draft EIS. However, given its length and complexity, it is essential that the City carefully consider the significant concerns raised by neighborhood representatives and community members.
1. Role of Neighborhood Councils and Community Assembly
The Draft EIS references neighborhood council boundaries but does not meaningfully incorporate neighborhood councils or the Community Assembly into the decision-making framework. These bodies are the City's formally constituted mechanisms for resident engagement on governance and land use matters.
While Neighborhood Action Plans are mentioned, many are outdated or nonexistent. We respectfully request clarification regarding how neighborhood councils will be engaged in shaping, refining, and implementing any final land use map or alternative.
2. Mechanism for Modifying Alternatives and Reaching Consensus
Both the Plan Commission and members of the public have raised concerns about Alternatives 2 and 3. We request a clear explanation of the mechanism by which these alternatives may be modified, combined, or refined into a single, consensus-based final plan.
The community deserves a transparent process that allows for thoughtful adjustment rather than a binary choice between two imperfect options.
3. Housing Need and Affordability Data
Recent 2025 studies, including the Land Capacity Analysis and Accommodating Affordable Housing reports, indicate that Spokane's housing deficit is concentrated in the 0-80% AMI category, with an estimated shortage of 4,400 units. At the same time, the City shows a surplus of approximately 6,000 units in the 80-120% AMI range and 9,000 units above 120% AMI.
Given this data, the central housing need through 2046 is affordable housing in the lower-income categories. Yet the Draft EIS appears to assume that increased private development across all income levels will inherently resolve affordability gaps. No concrete mechanisms are identified to ensure that new development will meaningfully address the 0-80% AMI shortage.
[PDF page 2 of 3]
We request clarification on how land use policy, demolition approvals, permitting, and incentives will be aligned specifically with documented affordability needs rather than generalized growth assumptions.
4. Demolition, Displacement, and Neighborhood Stability
Demolition of existing housing stock is a significant issue embedded within both Alternatives 2 and 3 but is not adequately addressed early or comprehensively in the Draft EIS.
Demolition can result in:
Displacement of lower-income residents
Reduction of homeownership opportunities
Increased reliance on rental housing
Disruption of established neighborhoods
The Draft EIS appears to assume that future anti-displacement policies and affordability measures will sufficiently mitigate these impacts. However, no evidence is provided that such measures are in place or will be effective.
We urge the City to explicitly address demolition impacts, displacement risk, and homeownership preservation in both analysis and policy recommendations.
5. Scope and Impact of Proposed Exemptions
The contemplated infill exemptions - particularly the expansion of "corridor" designations to one-half mile on each side and the suggestion that the entire city could qualify as a corridor - would dramatically alter neighborhood character across Spokane.
Such broad exemptions risk facilitating intensive, uncoordinated development within established single-family neighborhoods without adequate parking, tree preservation, or infrastructure considerations. The cumulative impact of these exemptions must be fully disclosed and carefully reconsidered.
6. Transportation, Parking, and Environmental Impacts
The Draft EIS indicates that neither alternative is expected to significantly increase transit use, with only minimal increases in active transportation. If population increases are anticipated without corresponding transit gains, personal vehicle use will likely rise.
We ask:
How will additional vehicle demand be accommodated?
Where will parking occur in areas with reduced requirements?
What strategies are in place to meaningfully reduce vehicle-related emissions?
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Additionally, the "Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources" section omits reference to the region's critical aquifer system. Given its importance to public health and environmental sustainability, this omission is concerning and warrants correction.
7. Need for Adaptive Planning Based on Current Conditions
While the plan contemplates course correction over a 20-year period, it is vital that today's realities serve as the baseline. Current population trends, housing stock conditions, family size, environmental health, displacement risks, and homeownership levels must guide responsible planning.
The overarching goals should include:
Minimizing displacement
Strengthening homeownership opportunities
Protecting neighborhood character
Preserving trees and environmental integrity
Directing growth toward demonstrable affordability needs
Conclusion
As currently presented, Alternatives 2 and 3 - combined with expansive infill exemptions - risk opening neighborhoods to unregulated or exploitative development patterns that may undermine community stability, environmental goals, and affordability objectives.
We do not believe this must be an either/or decision. A more thoughtful approach would integrate the strongest elements of each alternative while prioritizing environmental stewardship, neighborhood protection, and targeted affordable housing production.
The Grandview/Thorpe Neighborhood Council respectfully requests meaningful revisions to the Draft EIS and a transparent collaborative process moving forward. Our community stands ready to engage constructively in shaping a plan that meets Spokane's housing needs while preserving the integrity and livability of our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration.