I am writing to comment on the PlanSpokane 2046 Draft EIS. I strongly prefer Alternative 3 as the City's selected growth alternative. This support is conditioned on the EIS adequately evaluating cumulative environmental impacts at the comprehensive plan level and ensuring that those impacts are avoided or mitigated through adopted development regulations, consistent with SEPA.
Alternative 3 provides the greatest long-term climate, land-use, water, transportation, and infrastructure-efficiency benefits The City is considering expanded use of SEPA infill and housing exemptions. Given this approach, I urge the City to establish clear guardrails before broadly applying exemptions, including completing an inventory of existing urban natural assets - such as tree canopy, habitat value, and ecological connectivity in order to ensure that infill development does not result in unmitigated impacts to environmental resources within urban neighborhoods.
I 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 in the EIS, shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases. I support environmental review exemption only if the proposed development area is 100% disturbed and impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3. Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces.
Karli Honebein
Feb 18, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 1]
Hello!
I am writing to comment on the PlanSpokane 2046 Draft EIS. I strongly prefer Alternative 3 as the City's selected growth alternative. This support is conditioned on the EIS adequately evaluating cumulative environmental impacts at the comprehensive plan level and ensuring that those impacts are avoided or mitigated through adopted development regulations, consistent with SEPA.
Alternative 3 provides the greatest long-term climate, land-use, water, transportation, and infrastructure-efficiency benefits The City is considering expanded use of SEPA infill and housing exemptions. Given this approach, I urge the City to establish clear guardrails before broadly applying exemptions, including completing an inventory of existing urban natural assets - such as tree canopy, habitat value, and ecological connectivity in order to ensure that infill development does not result in unmitigated impacts to environmental resources within urban neighborhoods.
I 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 in the EIS, shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases. I support environmental review exemption only if the proposed development area is 100% disturbed and impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3. Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces.
Thank you for your time.
Karli Honebein
she/her/hers