I am writing as a long-time resident of Spokane to express my opposition to Options 2 and 3 in the PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Environmental review must be preserved. Spokane has adopted environmental goals, including a 30% tree canopy target by 2030. The review process must remain meaningful and enforceable so decisions are evaluated against those commitments.
2. Affordability requires more than volume. It requires matching what gets built to who lives here and what people can actually pay. A large share of Spokane's public elementary schools qualify for federal free and reduced lunch programs, which is a strong signal that many local families are low-income. Any plan claiming to address affordability should prioritize housing that is affordable to low-income households. The city's own planning documents indicate that the greatest housing need through 2046 is among lower-income residents. This plan should be evaluated against that need.
3. Infill on 20-foot lots with 3-foot setbacks leaves little room for mature trees or meaningful green space. Trees reduce heat, improve air quality, and make our neighborhoods livable. These options would incentivize tree removal to maximize developable area.
4. Retail in residential neighborhoods is a major community change. If the city wants to pursue this, it should be backed by meaningful, verified community input.
For these reasons, I urge the city to reject Options 2 and 3 and instead adopt measures that protect neighborhood livability, preserve tree canopy and green space, and meet documented affordability needs.
Mark Stenersen
Feb 18, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 1]
Dear Tirrell Black,
I am writing as a long-time resident of Spokane to express my opposition to Options 2 and 3 in the PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Environmental review must be preserved. Spokane has adopted environmental goals, including a 30% tree canopy target by 2030. The review process must remain meaningful and enforceable so decisions are evaluated against those commitments.
2. Affordability requires more than volume. It requires matching what gets built to who lives here and what people can actually pay. A large share of Spokane's public elementary schools qualify for federal free and reduced lunch programs, which is a strong signal that many local families are low-income. Any plan claiming to address affordability should prioritize housing that is affordable to low-income households. The city's own planning documents indicate that the greatest housing need through 2046 is among lower-income residents. This plan should be evaluated against that need.
3. Infill on 20-foot lots with 3-foot setbacks leaves little room for mature trees or meaningful green space. Trees reduce heat, improve air quality, and make our neighborhoods livable. These options would incentivize tree removal to maximize developable area.
4. Retail in residential neighborhoods is a major community change. If the city wants to pursue this, it should be backed by meaningful, verified community input.
For these reasons, I urge the city to reject Options 2 and 3 and instead adopt measures that protect neighborhood livability, preserve tree canopy and green space, and meet documented affordability needs.
Thank you for considering my comments.