Mary Stohr - Friends of Spokane Trees
Feb 18, 2026
Community Advocate
[PDF page 1 of 3]
Dear Tirrell Black, See comments below
February 18, 2026
Dear Spokane City Planning Department and City Leaders:
We are writing as members of the group Friends of Spokane Trees (FOST). We have several serious concerns about the PlanSpokane Draft Environmental Impact Statement, especially Options 2 and 3, as they relate to unrestricted development and the placement of retail establishments in our neighborhoods, the waiving of environmental review for most development projects in the city, and the lack of any meaningful protection of our urban forest, air quality, or water resources.
Several developments in Spokane have resulted in the widespread cutting of mature trees on private property; In fact, that is what spurred the creation of FOST.
The newish infill law (2019) leaves no room on 20 foot lots (which used to be a minimum of 50) with small setbacks (3 feet instead of 5) for large trees that are most likely to produce oxygen, sequester carbon, reduce the heat index, provide habitat for creatures and shade for all of us and bring beauty to our neighborhoods.
The lack of a requirement to provide parking for all of the cars for these new houses is likely to clog our streets, reduce street use (e.g. for walking, biking and skateboarding), increase crime (e.g. those neighborhoods with cars on the street are more likely to have car break-ins), harm street trees and make our neighborhoods less safe (e.g. no room for emergency vehicles, blocked sight lines leading to more collisions of cars and cars with bikes or people).
We are also finding out that despite the stated goal that all of the infill was necessary so that more low-income housing could be provided, has instead resulted in much of the houses priced upwards of $600,000-$1,000,000+ or mostly expensive apartments owned by wealthy developers.
The city's own comprehensive plan indicates that we will need approximately 23,400 new housing units by 2046, but most or all of that is needed for low-income residents; In other words, we have enough high and middle income housing.
[PDF page 2 of 3 begins within the following paragraph.]
So in effect we watched as our natural environment was destroyed, including the cutting of mature trees so that high income housing can be constructed. Unfortunately, the new proposed comprehensive plan's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicates that it will continue and increase the threats to neighborhoods, and by definition trees, by favoring "mixed use" retail placement right in the middle of neighborhoods (e.g. stores and restaurants right next to previously designated R-1 houses) and enshrines the lack of a parking/garage requirement for new housing (see Draft Environmental Impact Statement - City of Spokane, Washington).
The harm to our natural environment will be extended by the waiving of environmental review, as proposed in the draft EIS. Developers would face even less review than they do now and neighbors are reporting there is a lack of enforcement of the few restrictions in place as it is. Without environmental review what is to keep some developers from destroying land and trees, save private lawsuits that most residents can ill afford and would have spotty application. Therefore, we strongly oppose any effort to remove environmental review as it would lead to the further destruction of our urban forest.
Furthermore, how would this destruction help the city to achieve its stated goal of a 30% canopy by 2030? We, along with Spokane Urban Nature, stand in support of codes that protect natural lands, wildlife habitat and trees! Relatedly, we also note that there is too little attention paid to the Spocanopy program, an effort that is unique to Spokane, and emphasizes environmental equity. The draft EIS for the proposed comprehensive plan falls far short of these goals and support of this program.
In sum, the effect of infill exemptions and Options 2 and 3 in particular will open up neighborhoods to exploitive and somewhat unregulated development where retail, restaurants and apartment buildings are placed in the midst of single-family home communities, often with no parking requirements and no room for trees.
The waiving of environmental review of development plans will further hinder the ability of our community to develop and maintain vibrant neighborhoods, preserve our natural environment and areas and protect our citizens and resident creatures. We would note that many commentators on the draft comprehensive plan indicate that there is no need for an either/or approach to these options.
Rather the city might adopt the best from them to achieve the goals of protecting neighborhoods, increasing environmental integrity and reaching environmental goals (such as air quality through the protection of trees) and provision of affordable housing. But clearly, as offered, none of these options are optimal and will instead lead to just the opposite outcomes.
Sincerely, Mary K. Stohr, Ph.D.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Chair, Friends of Spokane Trees And 50+ Members of Friends of Spokane Trees, including: Craig Hemmens Alex Johnson Sandra Wicht Janet Yinger Michele Pajer Bill Doley Jennifer Ogden Jeff Lambert Cop Coppen Mary Nagel Karen L. Byrne
Mary Stohr - Friends of Spokane Trees
Feb 18, 2026
Community Advocate
[PDF page 1 of 3]
Dear Tirrell Black, See comments below
February 18, 2026
Dear Spokane City Planning Department and City Leaders:
We are writing as members of the group Friends of Spokane Trees (FOST). We have several serious concerns about the PlanSpokane Draft Environmental Impact Statement, especially Options 2 and 3, as they relate to unrestricted development and the placement of retail establishments in our neighborhoods, the waiving of environmental review for most development projects in the city, and the lack of any meaningful protection of our urban forest, air quality, or water resources.
Several developments in Spokane have resulted in the widespread cutting of mature trees on private property; In fact, that is what spurred the creation of FOST.
The newish infill law (2019) leaves no room on 20 foot lots (which used to be a minimum of 50) with small setbacks (3 feet instead of 5) for large trees that are most likely to produce oxygen, sequester carbon, reduce the heat index, provide habitat for creatures and shade for all of us and bring beauty to our neighborhoods.
The lack of a requirement to provide parking for all of the cars for these new houses is likely to clog our streets, reduce street use (e.g. for walking, biking and skateboarding), increase crime (e.g. those neighborhoods with cars on the street are more likely to have car break-ins), harm street trees and make our neighborhoods less safe (e.g. no room for emergency vehicles, blocked sight lines leading to more collisions of cars and cars with bikes or people).
We are also finding out that despite the stated goal that all of the infill was necessary so that more low-income housing could be provided, has instead resulted in much of the houses priced upwards of $600,000-$1,000,000+ or mostly expensive apartments owned by wealthy developers.
The city's own comprehensive plan indicates that we will need approximately 23,400 new housing units by 2046, but most or all of that is needed for low-income residents; In other words, we have enough high and middle income housing.
[PDF page 2 of 3 begins within the following paragraph.]
So in effect we watched as our natural environment was destroyed, including the cutting of mature trees so that high income housing can be constructed. Unfortunately, the new proposed comprehensive plan's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicates that it will continue and increase the threats to neighborhoods, and by definition trees, by favoring "mixed use" retail placement right in the middle of neighborhoods (e.g. stores and restaurants right next to previously designated R-1 houses) and enshrines the lack of a parking/garage requirement for new housing (see Draft Environmental Impact Statement - City of Spokane, Washington).
The harm to our natural environment will be extended by the waiving of environmental review, as proposed in the draft EIS. Developers would face even less review than they do now and neighbors are reporting there is a lack of enforcement of the few restrictions in place as it is. Without environmental review what is to keep some developers from destroying land and trees, save private lawsuits that most residents can ill afford and would have spotty application. Therefore, we strongly oppose any effort to remove environmental review as it would lead to the further destruction of our urban forest.
Furthermore, how would this destruction help the city to achieve its stated goal of a 30% canopy by 2030? We, along with Spokane Urban Nature, stand in support of codes that protect natural lands, wildlife habitat and trees! Relatedly, we also note that there is too little attention paid to the Spocanopy program, an effort that is unique to Spokane, and emphasizes environmental equity. The draft EIS for the proposed comprehensive plan falls far short of these goals and support of this program.
In sum, the effect of infill exemptions and Options 2 and 3 in particular will open up neighborhoods to exploitive and somewhat unregulated development where retail, restaurants and apartment buildings are placed in the midst of single-family home communities, often with no parking requirements and no room for trees.
The waiving of environmental review of development plans will further hinder the ability of our community to develop and maintain vibrant neighborhoods, preserve our natural environment and areas and protect our citizens and resident creatures. We would note that many commentators on the draft comprehensive plan indicate that there is no need for an either/or approach to these options.
Rather the city might adopt the best from them to achieve the goals of protecting neighborhoods, increasing environmental integrity and reaching environmental goals (such as air quality through the protection of trees) and provision of affordable housing. But clearly, as offered, none of these options are optimal and will instead lead to just the opposite outcomes.
Sincerely, Mary K. Stohr, Ph.D.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Chair, Friends of Spokane Trees And 50+ Members of Friends of Spokane Trees, including: Craig Hemmens Alex Johnson Sandra Wicht Janet Yinger Michele Pajer Bill Doley Jennifer Ogden Jeff Lambert Cop Coppen Mary Nagel Karen L. Byrne