Spencer Gardner, director, Planning Services
City of Spokane City Hall
Spokane Washington 99201
sent via email only
Director Gardner:
Thank you for the opportunity of Spokane County Planning to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the city of Spokane.
This EIS document is well-crafted and offers significant detail for consideration of growth. We commend the city for an in-depth assessment of conditions to accommodate growth and the vision to revisit the Centers and Corridors approach for a new generation.
We note the shift of new single-unit housing to an expected 25% of dwelling unit growth and the overall percentage difference between single-unit and multi-unit shrinking from 26% to 18%. This appears to represent a significant shift in residential lifestyle for Spokane. Spokane County encourages a vibrant residential core and downtown and hopes that this reflects a commitment by the city to create an active downtown residential development program.
The two action alternatives represent, on paper, a range of development impacts for quality of life and continued growth for a vibrant city - a collection of great neighborhoods.
Alternative Two continues the Centers and Corridors concept but simplifies the regulatory system to encourage higher intensity growth along transit corridors.
Alternative Three appears to project a stronger downtown/core growth and focused regional hubs, diminishing the role of corridors. Spokane County Planning supports this planning and visioning approach. The lack of a designated regional center on the West Plains suggests a role for a 2027 Sub area joint plan to create such a hub that can serve a broader geographic base.
There are three areas of interest to Spokane County Planning to better ascertain the city's ability to accommodate its population, housing, and jobs projections and goals: transportation capacity, utility capacity, and public policy alignment with the neighborhoods and the market.
Exhibit 3.7-14 shares thresholds of significance and shows an acknowledgement of the impact of the action alternatives, including the data in Exhibit 3.7-15, and summary Exhibit 3.7-25. We cannot find any capital facility estimates for the level of these impacts to determine a sustainable implementation program. The DEIS notes in 3.83 that the action alternatives will require a new capital facilities plan.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Public Services discusses the range of needed and desired services for a vibrant city. There is no discussion as to whether the fire department can meet its turnout times, response times, etc. (3-294)
Spokane has wonderful parks that are a true jewel of the city and region. This DEIS does not address how a level of service will be maintained with the forecast growth, including an assessment of land needed to maintain that LOS as part of an infill strategy.
For water, wastewater, and stormwater, Spokane County has questions.
Spokane is fortunate to have the water supply and quality of its system and is commended for the diligence in maintaining that service for all residents and customers. Exhibit 3.9-7 shows the growth of ERU& by TAZ based on the 2019 SRTC model for demand through 2042. There is no exhibit correlating the TAZ polygons with the projections in this DEIS, thus offering no certainty that Comp Plan 2046 growth is in areas that can accommodate increased water services. Mitigations are discussed, but no capital improvement data is offered to evaluate long-term affordability.
The Wastewater narrative notes that the RPWRF was planned for 50 MGD with a possible expansion to 85 MGD. The DEIS does not identify current usage, nor does it project whether future growth can be accommodated in the facility. Further, physical expansion of the current site seems challenging.
Stormwater is identified with several areas of concern, some of which overlap with planned infill development areas. The DEIS does not discuss the impact of increased impervious surface or the overburdening of the CSO system as a result.
Spokane County Planning will need to better understand the data suggested by the narrative to support the growth projects of this DEIS, and we presume that a preferred alternative will be supported by empirical data for the city's final EIS.
We welcome a discussion on our observations and will augment our comments as you show your work to support your final EIS.
Scott Chesney - Spokane County Planning
Feb 18, 2026
Government / Technical
[PDF page 1 of 3]
Spencer,
Please see the attached for comments from SpoCo Planning.
Look forward to serious joint planning in 2027.
Regards,
Scott R. Chesney, AICP
Planning Director
Spokane County Planning
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF page 2 of 3]
February 18, 2026
Spencer Gardner, director, Planning Services
City of Spokane City Hall
Spokane Washington 99201
sent via email only
Director Gardner:
Thank you for the opportunity of Spokane County Planning to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the city of Spokane.
This EIS document is well-crafted and offers significant detail for consideration of growth. We commend the city for an in-depth assessment of conditions to accommodate growth and the vision to revisit the Centers and Corridors approach for a new generation.
We note the shift of new single-unit housing to an expected 25% of dwelling unit growth and the overall percentage difference between single-unit and multi-unit shrinking from 26% to 18%. This appears to represent a significant shift in residential lifestyle for Spokane. Spokane County encourages a vibrant residential core and downtown and hopes that this reflects a commitment by the city to create an active downtown residential development program.
The two action alternatives represent, on paper, a range of development impacts for quality of life and continued growth for a vibrant city - a collection of great neighborhoods.
Alternative Two continues the Centers and Corridors concept but simplifies the regulatory system to encourage higher intensity growth along transit corridors.
Alternative Three appears to project a stronger downtown/core growth and focused regional hubs, diminishing the role of corridors. Spokane County Planning supports this planning and visioning approach. The lack of a designated regional center on the West Plains suggests a role for a 2027 Sub area joint plan to create such a hub that can serve a broader geographic base.
There are three areas of interest to Spokane County Planning to better ascertain the city's ability to accommodate its population, housing, and jobs projections and goals: transportation capacity, utility capacity, and public policy alignment with the neighborhoods and the market.
Exhibit 3.7-14 shares thresholds of significance and shows an acknowledgement of the impact of the action alternatives, including the data in Exhibit 3.7-15, and summary Exhibit 3.7-25. We cannot find any capital facility estimates for the level of these impacts to determine a sustainable implementation program. The DEIS notes in 3.83 that the action alternatives will require a new capital facilities plan.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Public Services discusses the range of needed and desired services for a vibrant city. There is no discussion as to whether the fire department can meet its turnout times, response times, etc. (3-294)
Spokane has wonderful parks that are a true jewel of the city and region. This DEIS does not address how a level of service will be maintained with the forecast growth, including an assessment of land needed to maintain that LOS as part of an infill strategy.
For water, wastewater, and stormwater, Spokane County has questions.
Spokane is fortunate to have the water supply and quality of its system and is commended for the diligence in maintaining that service for all residents and customers. Exhibit 3.9-7 shows the growth of ERU& by TAZ based on the 2019 SRTC model for demand through 2042. There is no exhibit correlating the TAZ polygons with the projections in this DEIS, thus offering no certainty that Comp Plan 2046 growth is in areas that can accommodate increased water services. Mitigations are discussed, but no capital improvement data is offered to evaluate long-term affordability.
The Wastewater narrative notes that the RPWRF was planned for 50 MGD with a possible expansion to 85 MGD. The DEIS does not identify current usage, nor does it project whether future growth can be accommodated in the facility. Further, physical expansion of the current site seems challenging.
Stormwater is identified with several areas of concern, some of which overlap with planned infill development areas. The DEIS does not discuss the impact of increased impervious surface or the overburdening of the CSO system as a result.
Spokane County Planning will need to better understand the data suggested by the narrative to support the growth projects of this DEIS, and we presume that a preferred alternative will be supported by empirical data for the city's final EIS.
We welcome a discussion on our observations and will augment our comments as you show your work to support your final EIS.