Below are my comments on the City of Spokane's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the PlanSpokane Comprehensive Plan.
I support 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 should work to protect existing tree canopy, wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors: Spokane has a tree canopy goal of 30% and strong support for natural land protection without adequate codes. The Plan should schedule an inventory of trees and natural areas and identify critical wildlife habitat. The Growth Management Act requires protection of critical areas, forests, habitat and natural lands.
The City should ensure that infill development does not result in unmitigated impacts to environmental resources within urban neighborhoods. The City is considering expanded use of SEPA infill and housing exemptions. I oppose the blanket Environmental Review exemption, which would not protect critical areas such as wetlands, forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas in neighborhoods.
Exhibit 7 in the draft EIS, shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases. I support the environmental review exemption only if the proposed development area is 100% disturbed and 100% impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3. Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces.
I think the Plan update should call for a survey/report on potential development where existing buildings, paved or cleared lots exist in the Phase 1 infill area. Once that is determined, those would be the priority for development. It would also inform the City and the public about how these sites would help meet future housing needs. I support fast tracking the permitting for 100% impervious sites.
I also support additional bonus density for any development within a quarter of a mile of the transportation corridors if the sites are 100% impervious. In addition, I support a bonus density if there are at least 10% and/or 20% of the unit units are "low income".
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mike Petersen
[PDF page 2 of 2 contains the commenter's street address, omitted from the reading text.]
Mike Petersen
Feb 18, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 2]
Greetings,
Below are my comments on the City of Spokane's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the PlanSpokane Comprehensive Plan.
I support 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 should work to protect existing tree canopy, wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors: Spokane has a tree canopy goal of 30% and strong support for natural land protection without adequate codes. The Plan should schedule an inventory of trees and natural areas and identify critical wildlife habitat. The Growth Management Act requires protection of critical areas, forests, habitat and natural lands.
The City should ensure that infill development does not result in unmitigated impacts to environmental resources within urban neighborhoods. The City is considering expanded use of SEPA infill and housing exemptions. I oppose the blanket Environmental Review exemption, which would not protect critical areas such as wetlands, forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas in neighborhoods.
Exhibit 7 in the draft EIS, shows all neighborhoods will be exempted from environmental review in two phases. I support the environmental review exemption only if the proposed development area is 100% disturbed and 100% impervious as identified in the Draft EIS Exhibit 3.1-3. Existing Hard (Impervious) Surfaces.
I think the Plan update should call for a survey/report on potential development where existing buildings, paved or cleared lots exist in the Phase 1 infill area. Once that is determined, those would be the priority for development. It would also inform the City and the public about how these sites would help meet future housing needs. I support fast tracking the permitting for 100% impervious sites.
I also support additional bonus density for any development within a quarter of a mile of the transportation corridors if the sites are 100% impervious. In addition, I support a bonus density if there are at least 10% and/or 20% of the unit units are "low income".
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mike Petersen
[PDF page 2 of 2 contains the commenter's street address, omitted from the reading text.]