I've attached a letter containing our comments regarding the PlanSpokane 2046 draft EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our ideas and concerns. We're looking forward to hearing about next steps as the EIS draft moves forward.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the PlanSpokane 2046 draft EIS.
We strongly support Goal ECOS 1 and ECOS1-1 to "Establish and support programs, codes, and standards that support the long-term health and maintenance of the urban canopy on public and private lands..." To that goal, we would emphasize and direct attention to closing any loopholes that currently exist which allow for private owners/developers to engage in wholesale destruction of the neighborhood eco-systems that have provided urban canopy and small forest environments for urban flora and fauna. We'd like to refer your attention to the recent "deforestation" and continued leveling of an iconic basalt form at 1111 E. 27th Ave. as an example of a developer slipping through a loophole to "crowd-build" multiple high-end housing units in a neighborhood of classic single homes.
Allowing this type of development in which high-end mixed housing is "infilled" into established neighborhoods is really disturbing to us. Therefore, we do not support Options 2 & 3 as they are currently proposed. These plans will open-up neighborhoods to exploitive and somewhat unregulated development, create congestion, increase the lack of parking for new housing, as well as challenge emergency access into neighborhoods. Also worthy of consideration, is how the dismantling of urban canopy/green spaces and eco-systems will impact the mental and physical health of future generations living in our neighborhoods.
Perhaps there should be a 4th Option, one that provides more teeth, more defined strategies to protect our urban eco-systems. This 4th option would strategically increase enforcement of restrictions that will reduce the destruction of urban canopy and ecosystems, as well as redefine development codes and regulations that address mixed-use placement in established neighborhoods. This 4th option would also incorporate stronger and more clearly defined oversight processes for development on private property to protect the heritage of trees and ecosystems that have historically supported and sustained us as human beings.
Thank you for reading this letter and for considering our concerns.
Mary and Dean Nagel
Feb 18, 2026
Local Residents
[PDF page 1 of 2]
Dear Mr. Black
I've attached a letter containing our comments regarding the PlanSpokane 2046 draft EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our ideas and concerns. We're looking forward to hearing about next steps as the EIS draft moves forward.
Best,
Mary & Dean Nagel
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF page 2 of 2]
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the PlanSpokane 2046 draft EIS.
We strongly support Goal ECOS 1 and ECOS1-1 to "Establish and support programs, codes, and standards that support the long-term health and maintenance of the urban canopy on public and private lands..." To that goal, we would emphasize and direct attention to closing any loopholes that currently exist which allow for private owners/developers to engage in wholesale destruction of the neighborhood eco-systems that have provided urban canopy and small forest environments for urban flora and fauna. We'd like to refer your attention to the recent "deforestation" and continued leveling of an iconic basalt form at 1111 E. 27th Ave. as an example of a developer slipping through a loophole to "crowd-build" multiple high-end housing units in a neighborhood of classic single homes.
Allowing this type of development in which high-end mixed housing is "infilled" into established neighborhoods is really disturbing to us. Therefore, we do not support Options 2 & 3 as they are currently proposed. These plans will open-up neighborhoods to exploitive and somewhat unregulated development, create congestion, increase the lack of parking for new housing, as well as challenge emergency access into neighborhoods. Also worthy of consideration, is how the dismantling of urban canopy/green spaces and eco-systems will impact the mental and physical health of future generations living in our neighborhoods.
Perhaps there should be a 4th Option, one that provides more teeth, more defined strategies to protect our urban eco-systems. This 4th option would strategically increase enforcement of restrictions that will reduce the destruction of urban canopy and ecosystems, as well as redefine development codes and regulations that address mixed-use placement in established neighborhoods. This 4th option would also incorporate stronger and more clearly defined oversight processes for development on private property to protect the heritage of trees and ecosystems that have historically supported and sustained us as human beings.
Thank you for reading this letter and for considering our concerns.
Best Regards, Mary & Dean Nagel