Environment. As a resident of Spokane for three years now, I have grown to love this city. I want us to aid at-risk communities and sustainably develop our city to meet both our needs and the needs of future generations. To me, this involves developing land in a way that serves our community members, not just powerful corporations within city limits. With this in mind, I would like to provide feedback on the Draft EIS.
First, I think that the City should consider adopting a new land use code that expands the definition of current zoning districts to include standards for preserved or park areas across all alternatives. From the acreage listed in Exhibit 3.4-6, the City should set aside a minimum percentage of land for greenspace, tree canopy, or parks for each zone, rather than concentrating park development in downtown districts. This could more accurately represent the "public/open space" designation seen in the Existing Land Use map (Exhibit 3.4.11) and ensure that land is set aside for all zones for public natural space. Moreover, minimum greenspace requirements could expand upon the goals of the Centers and Corridors Study (page 3-90) to diversify use.
On that note, I think that either Alternative 2 or 3 should consider how to implement restoration into land use planning. Development right now focuses on human use of roads or neighborhood centers, without designating areas to develop through restoration of park land, wetlands, or prairies that could provide ecosystem services to nearby residents or visitors. Two areas in need of land use planning that includes environmental restoration are the open gravel plots around Desmet Ave, near my house and the Clark Fork restaurant, and the open gravel lot near Kendall Yards. Empty land would better serve residents and our environment if it were restored as a productive ecosystem.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Importantly, the City should heavily consider the negative environmental implications of Alternative 3 as outlined in this draft. As described in Exhibit 3.4-25, Alternative 3 would concentrate "intense clustering" on areas already seeing heavy use, focused around the city center.
This means that noise pollution, traffic pollution, smog, and other negative environment effects already experienced by those in the city would increase. Additionally, industrial areas would remain in designated locations, such as in Northeast Spokane and the West Plains, without mixed-used development (Exhibit 3.4-25).
This would concentrate pollution from industrial activities in these regions without making them safer or more livable.
Concentrating growth in the city is additionally problematic due to the land surface temperatures and climate risk experienced by communities outside of the city center - as shown in Exhibit 3.4-23, the land surface temperatures can impact industrialized centers outside of the city, calling for an expansion of resources towards these hubs as well.
Alternative 2 would decrease environmental impact because of the localization of services around neighborhood centers, which would increase walkability and decrease commute greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, this could allow more local investment into development that meets the needs of local neighborhoods, leading to streets that are better taken care of. A part of this Alternative must be tree canopy installation around renovated areas.
Another general change the City should consider in relation to Alternative 2 is ensuring that height limits change as neighborhood units are developed as mixed-use zones, allowing for more high-density housing and infrastructure in local areas (Exhibit 3.4-7). I think this is especially important for the Division Corridor, which is currently very commercial and without much integrated tree cover or housing, important in order to make the corridor feel accessible and safe. One area that implements mixed-use development well, in my opinion, is the growing Garland district which offers housing, safe and wide streets, tree canopy, and retail services all within a few blocks.
Leah Gulick
Mar 5, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 3]
See attached. I focused my comments on section 3.4.
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF page 2 of 3]
Environment. As a resident of Spokane for three years now, I have grown to love this city. I want us to aid at-risk communities and sustainably develop our city to meet both our needs and the needs of future generations. To me, this involves developing land in a way that serves our community members, not just powerful corporations within city limits. With this in mind, I would like to provide feedback on the Draft EIS.
First, I think that the City should consider adopting a new land use code that expands the definition of current zoning districts to include standards for preserved or park areas across all alternatives. From the acreage listed in Exhibit 3.4-6, the City should set aside a minimum percentage of land for greenspace, tree canopy, or parks for each zone, rather than concentrating park development in downtown districts. This could more accurately represent the "public/open space" designation seen in the Existing Land Use map (Exhibit 3.4.11) and ensure that land is set aside for all zones for public natural space. Moreover, minimum greenspace requirements could expand upon the goals of the Centers and Corridors Study (page 3-90) to diversify use.
On that note, I think that either Alternative 2 or 3 should consider how to implement restoration into land use planning. Development right now focuses on human use of roads or neighborhood centers, without designating areas to develop through restoration of park land, wetlands, or prairies that could provide ecosystem services to nearby residents or visitors. Two areas in need of land use planning that includes environmental restoration are the open gravel plots around Desmet Ave, near my house and the Clark Fork restaurant, and the open gravel lot near Kendall Yards. Empty land would better serve residents and our environment if it were restored as a productive ecosystem.
[PDF page 3 of 3]
Importantly, the City should heavily consider the negative environmental implications of Alternative 3 as outlined in this draft. As described in Exhibit 3.4-25, Alternative 3 would concentrate "intense clustering" on areas already seeing heavy use, focused around the city center.
This means that noise pollution, traffic pollution, smog, and other negative environment effects already experienced by those in the city would increase. Additionally, industrial areas would remain in designated locations, such as in Northeast Spokane and the West Plains, without mixed-used development (Exhibit 3.4-25).
This would concentrate pollution from industrial activities in these regions without making them safer or more livable.
Concentrating growth in the city is additionally problematic due to the land surface temperatures and climate risk experienced by communities outside of the city center - as shown in Exhibit 3.4-23, the land surface temperatures can impact industrialized centers outside of the city, calling for an expansion of resources towards these hubs as well.
Alternative 2 would decrease environmental impact because of the localization of services around neighborhood centers, which would increase walkability and decrease commute greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, this could allow more local investment into development that meets the needs of local neighborhoods, leading to streets that are better taken care of. A part of this Alternative must be tree canopy installation around renovated areas.
Another general change the City should consider in relation to Alternative 2 is ensuring that height limits change as neighborhood units are developed as mixed-use zones, allowing for more high-density housing and infrastructure in local areas (Exhibit 3.4-7). I think this is especially important for the Division Corridor, which is currently very commercial and without much integrated tree cover or housing, important in order to make the corridor feel accessible and safe. One area that implements mixed-use development well, in my opinion, is the growing Garland district which offers housing, safe and wide streets, tree canopy, and retail services all within a few blocks.