Preferred Alternative Growth Map Recommendation
Staff report prepared for the Spokane Plan Commission hearing, April 14, 2026
Planning Services, City of Spokane
[Page 1]
Preferred Alternative
Growth Map
Recommendation
STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR SPOKANE PLAN COMMISSION
HEARING, APRIL 14, 2026
PLANNING SERVICES, CITY OF SPOKANE
AGENDA
[Page 2]
Executive Summary
This staff report supports the City of Spokane’s 2026 Periodic Update to its Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046) and presents a draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map for consideration by the Plan
Commission.
The periodic update is required under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW
36.70A.130, and must be completed by December 31, 2026. The update ensures that the City’s
Comprehensive Plan remains consistent with state law, incorporates new legislative requirements, and
reflects the community’s vision for growth over the next 20 years.
A central component of this update is the selection of a preferred growth strategy for the City of Spokane
through 2046. Three alternatives were evaluated through a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
released for public comment in December 2025. Based on this analysis, along with public engagement
and Plan Commission input, staff have developed a Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A) that
blends key features of Alternatives 2 and 3.
The Preferred Alternative is designed to:
Accommodate projected population growth of at least 23,357 residents by 2046;
Provide sufficient housing capacity across all income levels, consistent with new state housing
requirements and the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070;
Support climate goals by encouraging more compact, transit-oriented development patterns;
Maintain employment capacity and existing industrial land uses; and
Utilize existing infrastructure and public investments efficiently.
The DEIS analysis indicates that the Preferred Alternative improves the outcomes listed above compared
to existing conditions, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, land
use efficiency, and housing affordability at all income bands.
The draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A), prepared for this Plan Commission Hearing,
represents an intermediate step in the Comprehensive Plan adoption process. It will guide the
development of a detailed Future Land Use Map and inform completion of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), both of which will be included in the final Comprehensive Plan update package.
More information about the draft Preferred Alternative can be found on the interactive PlanSpokane
StoryMap.
Action Requested
The Spokane Plan Commission is asked to review this staff report, consider public input both during public
engagement and the public comment period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and
recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution directing staff to proceed with the Preferred
Alternative as the basis for completing the Comprehensive Plan update.
Final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated in late 2026.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 3]
Background
The City of Spokane is undertaking a periodic update to its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). Periodic updates are mandated on a ten-year cycle to
ensure that local comprehensive plans remain consistent with state law, reflect legislative changes, and
respond to evolving community needs. The City of Spokane’s last comprehensive plan update was
completed in 2017.
Since that time, state law has introduced new planning requirements, particularly related to climate
change and housing. Recent legislation requires jurisdictions to plan for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and vehicle miles traveled, as well as to accommodate housing needs across a full range of
income levels. In response, the City must incorporate new policies, strategies, and implementation
measures into its Comprehensive Plan.
The Washington State Department of Commerce provides guidance for periodic updates through the
“Checklist for Fully Planning Cities,” which outlines required policy and regulatory changes. The City will
use this checklist to demonstrate compliance with updated state requirements as part of the adoption
process, anticipated in late 2026. Updates to development regulations will be addressed separately
through the City’s development code update, known as the “BUILDSpokane” initiative.
The 2026 periodic update will establish a policy framework to guide growth and development in Spokane
over the next 20 years. This includes revising existing plan elements, integrating new state-mandated
topics, and identifying a growth strategy to accommodate projected population and employment
increases.
Project Overview: PlanSpokane 2046
PlanSpokane 2046 is the City’s 2026 Periodic Update to its Comprehensive Plan and will establish a longrange policy framework to guide growth, development, and investment over the next 20 years. The
update ensures compliance with state law while advancing the community’s vision for a more resilient,
connected, and livable Spokane.
The project has two primary objectives: (1) to update and improve the existing Comprehensive Plan
document, and (2) to define a growth strategy that accommodates projected population and employment
needs through 2046.
Project Goals
The PlanSpokane 2046 update is guided by the following goals:
Meet State Legislative Requirements:
Ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and recent legislative updates,
including new requirements related to housing and climate planning.
Accommodate Growth:
Plan for projected population and employment growth by providing sufficient land capacity for
housing, jobs, and services across the city.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 4]
Promote Housing Affordability and Choice:
Support a range of housing types and densities to meet the needs of residents at all income
levels, consistent with updated state housing requirements.
Integrate Climate and Resiliency:
Incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower vehicle miles traveled and
improve the City’s resilience to climate impacts.
Improve Plan Usability:
Streamline the Comprehensive Plan by simplifying language, reducing redundancy, and making
the document more accessible and user-friendly.
Reflect Community Vision:
Incorporate input from public engagement efforts to ensure that the updated plan aligns with
community priorities and identifies gaps in existing policies.
Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations:
Updates to the City’s existing Critical Area Ordinances are being worked on as part of the
periodic update and are anticipated to be completed Q3/4 2026.
Growth Forecast and Allocation
Population
Through a regional effort, the City of Spokane has been allocated a projected population to plan for, with
an addition of 23,357 people by 2046. Spokane County is planning for a total increase of 100,065 people
by 2046 (inclusive of the city’s allocation). This reflects the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
Medium forecast. This forecast will be revisited for conformance during the 2031 5-year Implementation
Progress Report, mandated by RCW 36.70A.130(9). The OFM forecast for Growth Management Act (GMA)
population projections by counties will be revised in time for the next periodic update in 2036, with a
planning horizon of 2036-2056.
The population allocation (or, share given to cities), urbanized county areas, and rural areas were adopted
on June 18, 2024, by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Spokane County Resolution 2024-0348.
Housing
In previous periodic updates, including the 2017 periodic update, cities in the region used the population
allocation, or estimated population increase, to create their own housing units need forecast. In addition
to the previous requirements under GMA for cities to plan for population and employment increases, this
periodic update incorporates new methods of estimating housing needs by forecast population in each
income band, as required by HB 1220 (2021) and codified in RCW 36.70A.070. The Spokane County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a methodology to estimate housing needs by income band in
Spokane County Resolution 2025-0033, using the WA Commerce Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT).
Following this methodology, the city has prepared a full report Accommodating Affordable Housing, June
2025, a required document in preparation for the periodic update (Exhibit E). This work, along with the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, identified gaps in the City’s housing unit capacity by affordability,
especially in the 0-80% AMI category.
WA Commerce has extensive guidance on planning for housing on their webpage.
(https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growth-management/housing-planning/)
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 5]
Inherent in this discussion is the recognition that, in the lower income bands, WA Commerce guidance
indicates that affordable housing units are typically multifamily housing units (see below table on WA
Commerce Housing Typologies and their assumed affordability level). While important to accommodate
the recommended housing types for incomes below 80% AMI, this does not preclude the city from
allowing other types of units in all land use categories such as cottage housing or townhomes to meet
those housing needs while still providing a path to homeownership. However, current data indicates that
the most affordable units in Spokane are found in multi-unit housing.
The following table is from WA Commerce Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element Book 2 (January
2026). Further discussion mentioned in the table is available in the guidebook.
Figure 1. WA Department of Commerce graphic illustrating housing types by income levels.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 6]
Figure 2. Table illustrating housing mix and targets of the PlanSpokane 2046 growth alternatives.
Draft EIS Alternatives, Housing Mix and Targets
Housing Growth
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Stay the Course
Distributed and Balanced
Center City & Regional Hubs
21,739* new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing units than
present)
*This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022
Housing Mix
Housing Targets
63% of the City’s
total housing as
single unit housing
Meets total target
Does not meet 080% AMI
affordability
59% of the City’s total
housing as single unit
housing
Meets total housing target
and all affordability levels
Provides more capacity in
low-rise and mid-rise
Same as Alternative 2
Same as Alternative 2
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis of Alternative 1, Existing Conditions, showed a
deficit of zoned capacity to support housing at the lower income bands. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3,
as studied both provide enough increase in zoned capacity to support additional multifamily housing. The
draft Preferred Alternative Map (Exhibit A) supports enough increase in zoned capacity to support the City
of Spokane’s housing allocation.
Climate Integration
A new element, Climate Planning and Resilience, was required to be added for the 2026 periodic update.
The City of Spokane has chosen to integrate the climate element into existing chapters, rather than create
a new element/chapter. For brevity in this document, the climate planning work is documented in the
Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board Resolution 2026-001, Resolution recommending support of the
Climate Policy Integration Document in the 2026 Periodic Update (February 2026)(Exhibit F). Additional
and extensive Climate Planning work is available at PlanSpokane.org.
For consideration of the preferred alternative, it is recognized that climate planning element integration
has highlighted the benefits of compact urban development located near transit investments, particularly
when considering the new comprehensive plan goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
DEIS analysis of Alternatives 2 and 3 found that both have improvement in GHG and VMT goals over
Alternative 1, Existing Conditions. Alternative 2 has a “transit-oriented development” approach, with both
Alternative 2 and 3 leveraging compact development patterns to make use of existing utility capacity
which can result in reduction in water use, as less water is used for landscaping. The Preferred Alternative
map is a blend of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 7]
Scope of Work
The periodic update consists of two primary components:
Comprehensive Plan Chapter Updates (also known as Chapter Review):
Existing plan elements are being reviewed and updated to reflect current regulations, policy
direction, and best practices. This includes simplifying language, removing redundancies, and
integrating new state-required topics – such as climate planning – into relevant chapters.
Growth Strategy and Land Use Planning:
The City is evaluating alternative growth patterns to determine how future development should
be distributed. This includes selecting a Preferred Alternative Growth Map, which will guide
preparation of a detailed Future Land Use Map and inform the final Comprehensive Plan.
These components have undergone environmental review through the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) process and ongoing public engagement. Together, they will result in a Comprehensive Plan that
provides clear, actionable guidance for managing growth and development in Spokane through 2046.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter Updates
The first component of the process involves reviewing and revising the existing elements (chapters and
technical appendices) of the Comprehensive Plan. This work includes updating policies to reflect changes
in state law, incorporating new requirements related to housing and climate, and improving the overall
clarity and usability of the document.
Draft chapters are being developed and made available for public and Plan Commission review throughout
the process.
Growth Strategy and Land Use Planning
The second component focuses on updating the City’s long-term growth strategy to respond to changing
needs. The City developed and evaluated three growth alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), representing different approaches to accommodating future population and
employment growth. These alternatives were informed by technical analysis and refined through
feedback from the public and the Spokane Plan Commission.
Based on this evaluation, a Preferred Alternative Growth Map has been developed. This map provides a
policy-level framework for where and how growth should occur and serves as a foundation for the
development of a Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review (EIS Process)
An EIS provides analysis of potential impacts related to land use, housing, transportation, and
environmental factors, and helps inform selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 8]
The PlanSpokane 2046 growth alternatives and Preferred Alternative will be evaluated through a
programmatic EIS process in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This includes:
A SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) was issued on February 5, 2025.
The comment period for the DS (Scoping period) ran from February 5, 2025, to April 7, 2025.
A DEIS was prepared following the DS, and in conformance with the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution 2024-0348 and adopted Board of County Commissioners housing
allocation methodology, Resolution 2025-0033.
The DEIS was issued on December 18, 2025.
The comment period for the DEIS was December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026. Upon request,
an additional 15 days were provided, extending the comment period to March 5, 2026.
Comments received from agencies and individuals during the DEIS comment period are being
compiled and will be responded to in the Final EIS.
Final EIS is anticipated in Q3 2026.
The DEIS and associated documents, including an interactive StoryMap, may be viewed at
PlanSpokane.org.
Public Engagement
Public engagement is integrated throughout the periodic update planning process. Opportunities for input
include public workshops, comment periods associated with the EIS, and ongoing outreach to community
members and stakeholders. Feedback received through these efforts has informed both the evaluation of
alternatives and development of the Preferred Alternative.
Plan Commission Periodic Update Introduction – September 25, 2024
Plan Commission Workshop – December 11, 2024
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 9]
Plan Commission Workshop – January 8, 2025
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – February 6, 2025
Scoping Period Agency and Tribal Governments Meeting – February 19, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – February 26, 2025
Land Use Subcommittee, Community Assembly – February 27, 2025
District 1 Visioning Workshop – March 5, 2025
Community-Wide Visioning Workshop – March 12, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – March 12, 2025
District 2 Visioning Workshop – March 25, 2025
District 3 Visioning Workshop – March 27, 2025
Community Visioning Survey – March 31 to April 18, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – April 9, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – April 23, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – May 14, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – May 28, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – June 11, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – June 25, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – July 9, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – July 23, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – August 13, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – September 10, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – September 24, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – October 22, 2025
Land Use Subcommittee, Community Assembly – October 23, 2025
District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 5, 2025
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – November 6, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – November 12, 2025
District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 12, 2025
District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 18, 2025
Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 19, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – December 10, 2025
DEIS Agency and Tribal Governments Meeting – January 6, 2026
PlanSpokane Virtual Lunch and Learn – January 13, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – January 14, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, City Hall – January 20, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – January 28, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Hillyard Library – February 3, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Liberty Park Library – February 5, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Shadle Park Library – February 10, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – February 11, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, South Hill Library – February 12, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – February 25, 2026
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – April 2, 2026
In addition to the listed Plan Commission workshops and public engagement opportunities, numerous
public workshops discussing the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update occurred with the Climate Resilience
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 10]
and Sustainability Board, Transportation Commission, and City Council. Numerous tabling pop-ups as
community events have occurred to spread community awareness about PlanSpokane 2046 and
presentations to various community groups and organizations have also occurred, upon request. Overall,
PlanSpokane 2046 has had over 4,400 direct individual touchpoints during engagement as of the end of
March 2026, including workshop attendees, survey participants, and pop-up event discussions.
In addition to direct engagement and presentations, the project has incorporated robust outreach to
provide community members information about the project and how to be involved.
Outreach efforts have included the monthly PlanSpokane newsletter with approximately 1,800
subscribers, the City webpage, Engage Spokane virtual platform, other City newsletters, social media, and
direct emails.
Draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map
The Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A) represents the City’s recommended approach for
accommodating future growth as part of the 2026 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046). This alternative is informed by technical analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), public engagement, and guidance from the Spokane Plan Commission.
The Preferred Alternative is a hybrid of Alternatives 2 and 3, combining a transit-oriented development
pattern with targeted expansion of housing and mixed-use areas. This approach is intended to balance
growth, affordability, environmental performance, and infrastructure efficiency.
Key Characteristics
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD):
The draft Preferred Alternative emphasizes increased residential and mixed-use development
near existing and planned transit corridors. This pattern supports reductions in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while improving access to jobs and
services.
Housing Capacity and Affordability:
The growth map provides sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate projected population
growth and meet state requirements for housing across all income levels. Increased capacity is
focused in areas where multifamily and mixed-income housing types have access to transit and
services.
Targeted Growth:
Existing centers and corridors will be updated but will continue to provide a focus for mixed use
(commercial and residential) growth, with additional zoning capacity introduced in select
locations. This reinforces established development patterns while allowing for strategic
intensification. The draft Preferred Alternative does, however, recognize the benefit of limited
mixed-use development neighborhood-scale commercial outside of these designated areas to
provide greater access to services and daily needs for all community members.
Downtown and Core Areas:
The draft Preferred Alternative maintains current development allowances in downtown
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 11]
Spokane, including areas with no height limits. This supports continued high-intensity
development and reinforces downtown as a regional employment and activity center.
Limited Change in Some Areas:
Areas such as Latah Valley, Grandview, and Thorpe generally retain existing land use
designations, with only minor adjustments (e.g., along Inland Empire Way in the Vinegar Flats
area). This approach recognizes existing development patterns and planned growth already
underway. Additional areas not identified for growth priority or intensity increases in the
Preferred Alternative Growth Map are intended to maintain their current level of intensity and
allowances.
Integration of Ongoing and Recent Planning Efforts:
The Preferred Alternative incorporates recommendations from recent and ongoing subarea
planning efforts, including:
o Division Street TOD planning
o East Central (ReFive/5th Avenue) planning
o Centers and Corridors Update Study
o South Logan TOD Plan
o Hillyard Sub Area Plan
Efficient Use of Infrastructure:
By focusing growth in already-served areas, the Preferred Alternative leverages existing utility
systems and public investments, reducing the need for costly infrastructure expansion.
Rationale for Selection
The draft Preferred Alternative meets the City’s objectives for growth management, housing, and climate
integration. Compared to existing conditions, it demonstrates improved performance in areas evaluated
in the DEIS, including housing capacity, environmental outcomes, and land use efficiency.
This alternative also reflects community desire while aligning with state requirements for planning for
housing at all income levels and integrating climate considerations into land use planning. However, Plan
Commission may still propose amendments to this map at their hearing and City Council may also adjust
at their adoption of the Preferred Alternative by Resolution expected in May 2026. In general, any
amendments should avoid expanding beyond the growth that was analyzed in the DEIS to avoid additional
costs and time.
Next Steps
Adoption of the Preferred Alternative Growth Map will guide the preparation of a detailed Future Land
Use Map, including Land Use Designations in all parts of the City. It will also inform completion of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the remaining elements of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Ultimately, the FLUM will determine high level requirements for which zones are appropriate in certain
locations in the City. However, neither the Preferred Alternative nor the Comprehensive Plan Update
directly change zoning. Rather, they establish the policy framework that will be implemented through
subsequent updates to the City’s development code, including the BUILDSpokane initiative.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 12]
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Plan Commission find the Preferred Alternative Growth Map consistent with
the goals and requirements of the 2026 Periodic Update to the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046) and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Based on review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), applicable state requirements, and
public input received to date, staff find that the Preferred Alternative:
Provides Adequate Housing Capacity:
Accommodates projected population growth and meets state requirements to plan for housing
across all income levels, including increased capacity for multifamily housing.
Supports Employment and Economic Development:
Maintains existing industrial land designations and preserves sufficient land capacity for
employment uses.
Enhances Mixed-Use and Commercial Opportunities:
Expands and strengthens centers and corridors with additional opportunities for mixed-use and
neighborhood-serving commercial development throughout the city.
Advances Climate and Sustainability Goals:
Promotes compact, transit-oriented development patterns that contribute to reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Utilizes Existing Infrastructure Efficiently:
Focuses growth in areas with existing or planned infrastructure, supporting cost-effective
service delivery and minimizing the need for expansion.
Aligns with the Comprehensive Plan Update Process:
Reflects analysis conducted through the DEIS, incorporates community input, and is consistent
with guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce.
Plan Commission Action
The Plan Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the draft
Preferred Alternative Growth Map. This item will then move to the City Council legislative process. Staff
requests that the City Council adopt a resolution directing staff to proceed with the Preferred Alternative
Growth Map as the basis for completing the Comprehensive Plan update, including development of the
Future Land Use Map and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
This action represents a key milestone in the update process and will guide preparation of the final
Comprehensive Plan, anticipated for adoption in late 2026.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 13]
Exhibits
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Preferred Alternative Draft Map dated 4/14/2026 for PC Hearing
DEIS Summary, with Alternatives Illustrated
DEIS Comments Summary
Public Participation Summaries
Accommodating Affordable Housing, June 2025
Climate Integration Report (CRSB Resolution 2026-001)
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 14]
Exhibit A
Preferred Alternative Draft Map
Preferred Alternative Map
Potential Land Use Change Areas Map
Northwest Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
Northeast Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
South Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
AGENDA
[Page 15]
AGENDA
[Page 16]
AGENDA
[Page 17]
AGENDA
[Page 18]
AGENDA
[Page 19]
AGENDA
[Page 20]
Draft EIS Summary
Background
The City of Spokane is working on a periodic update to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as required by the State’s Growth Management Act
(GMA). The last periodic update was completed in 2017. Since then, the
State has added new requirements, especially around climate and
housing. Due in June 2026, the periodic update will identify policies and
future regulations to guide the next 20 years of our city.
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 process, the City is developing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an informational document that
provides the City, public, Tribes, and agencies with environmental
information to be considered in the decision-making process.
What We’re Planning For
The City of Spokane is expected to gain at least 23,357 new residents
between 2023 and 2046, bringing the City’s total population to just
over 256,000.
Projected new residents by 2046
Based on state requirements, the City is expected to need 22,359
additional housing units between 2020 and 2046. In addition to the
total number housing units, the City is also required to plan for
housing by affordability bracket.
Additional housing units needed
between 2020 and 2046
For more information, Visit PlanSpokane.org
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 21]
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Purpose and Process
An EIS is required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for larger projects such as a significant
update to the Comprehensive Plan. An EIS describes the potential environmental impacts,
reasonable alternatives, and ways to avoid or minimize negative impacts of policies.
The Draft EIS presents three alternatives to test different growth patterns and policies. The City will then
create a “preferred alternative” based on public input and the Draft EIS evaluation. The preferred
alternative may include any features of the studied alternatives. The preferred alternative will be
evaluated in the Final EIS and will inform the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
The EIS studies the following topics:
Earth, water quality, and
water resources
Relationship to plans, policies, and
regulations
Air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions
Transportation, including multiple
modes and city and state facilities
Plants and animals, including
critical areas and habitat
Public services: police, fire and
emergency medical services, parks,
schools, libraries, solid waste
Land use patterns and urban
form, including historic and
cultural resources
Utilities: power, water,
wastewater, and stormwater
Population, employment, and
housing
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
2
AGENDA
[Page 22]
Objectives
This EIS compares alternatives for their ability to meet these objectives:
Meet Periodic Update Requirements, including providing capacity for more housing types and
affordability levels, increasing resiliency to climate impacts, evaluating tree canopy coverage,
increasing opportunities for active transportation, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gas emissions, addressing needs of overburdened communities, increasing green infrastructure,
planning for jobs and economic development, and more.
Accommodate Growth through 2046 based on State projections and County allocations.
Clarify the Plan to remove policies that are inconsistent, outdated, duplicative, or unclear.
Simplify the Plan and Codes including future land use map categories and zoning districts and
reflect any new designations.
Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations to reflect best available science.
Fast-Track Desired Growth in priority locations through permit streamlining.
The City’s proposed draft vision statement for the periodic update is also considered an objective:
Spokane aims to foster a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive city by supporting economic growth,
environmental stewardship, and the diverse needs of the whole community. The City is dedicated to
ensuring access to attainable housing, safe streets, and thriving neighborhoods while inspiring
innovation, cultural vitality, and connection for all Spokane residents.
Proposed Alternatives
Alternative 1 “Stay the Course” would maintain the current comprehensive plan and code. It was
developed in prior years with different growth targets and different state expectations.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to meet current state requirements (including new housing, climate,
and other requirements), create the opportunity for housing at all income levels, accommodate jobs, and
update policies and codes to streamline them and facilitate growth.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
3
AGENDA
[Page 23]
Alternatives Summary
Alternative 1
Stay the Course
Alternative 2
Distributed &
Balanced
Alternative 3
Center City &
Regional Hubs
Same for all Housing /
alternatives population
growth
21,739 new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing
Varies by
alternative
Plan and
code
update
Maintains current
Updates the
Updates the
Focus areas
for growth
Focuses growth in
Focuses growth
Focuses growth in
units than present)*
25,157 new residents from 2022-2046*
comprehensive
plan and code
Downtown and
Centers and
Corridors
comprehensive
plan and code
in mixed-use,
transit-oriented
development
Allows more
neighborhoodserving
commercial uses
Simplifies Land
Use Plan
Housing
mix
63% of the City’s
total housing as
single unit housing
Housing
Would provide
affordability
enough housing
capacity at incomes
above 80% of the
median*
comprehensive plan
and code
downtown, regional
hubs, and areas with
greatest investment in
transit and
transportation
Allows more
neighborhood-serving
commercial uses
Simplifies land use
plan
59% of the City’s
59% of the City’s total
Would provide
Would provide
total housing as
single unit
housing
enough housing
capacity
affordable at all
income levels
housing as single unit
housing
enough housing
capacity affordable at
all income levels
Would not provide
enough housing
capacity at incomes
less than 80% of
the median**
Job
projections
34,850 new jobs*** 24,939 new
jobs***
38,848 new jobs***
*This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022. Population is
adjusted to 2022-46 instead of 2023-46 using state data for a consistent 2022 base year.
**Area median income is $70,600 for a one-person household, $80,700 for a two-person household, $90,800 for a
three-person household, or $100,800 for a four-person household as of 2025.
***Each alternative studies a job projection from a different data source. The different numbers are not based on
an alternative’s likelihood to produce more or fewer jobs.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
4
AGENDA
[Page 24]
Alternative Concepts
Alternative 1: Stay the Course
Key Features
Alternative 2: Distributed and Balanced
Alternative 3: Center City and Regional Hubs
Growth Intensity
Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 25]
Alternatives 2 and 3 would better meet the objectives for the plan update than Alternative 1.
Ability to Meet Objectives
Objectives
Alternative 1: Stay
the Course
Alternative 2:
Distributed and
Balanced
Alternative 3:
Center City and
Regional Hubs
Meet Periodic Update
Requirements
Less
Most
Most
Accommodate Growth:
Housing at All Affordability
Levels
More
Most
Most
Accommodate Growth:
Jobs
More
More
Most
Clarify the Plan
Less
Most
Most
Simplify the Plan and
Codes
Less
Most
Most
Protect Critical Areas
More
Most
Most
Fast-Track Desired Growth
Less
Most
Most
Alignment with Vision
Statement
Less
Most
Most
Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
Study Area
This EIS primarily focuses on the Spokane city limits. These city study areas are referenced in the EIS:
Northwest Spokane
Northeast Spokane
South Spokane
West Plains
Center City, overlapping several study areas, including Downtown Spokane
Division corridor, straddling Northwest and Northeast Spokane
Within these broad study areas, the EIS also mentions Neighborhood Council boundaries.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 26]
Spokane Study Areas
Sources: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
2
AGENDA
[Page 27]
Abbreviated Summary of Impacts (see Draft EIS for full context)
Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Impacts from
Stormwater runoff best management
construction (soil
disturbance, erosion,
water pollution, and soil
contamination)
Increased pollution and
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
rainfall runoff due to
growth and increased
hard surfaces
Alternative 1 has the
highest impacts (more
growth on undeveloped
land)
practices
Increased density (reduces sprawl)
New climate policies and updated critical
areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3
Potential measures:
Updated stormwater controls
Critical area buffer restoration
Protecting tree canopy
Review Spokane Municipal Code
Section 17E.010 Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area for additional
protections, such as addressing
demands on aquifer as temperatures
increase
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives see a net New climate policies in Alternatives 2 and 3
decrease in
Potential measures:
transportation
emissions
Emissions from nonNo significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
transportation sources
would be highest under
Alternatives 1 and 3
Differences among
alternatives are small at
the citywide scale
Investments in multi-modal
transportation infrastructure
Fees that reduce traffic congestion
Mixed uses and density
Electric vehicle adoption
Building electrification and energy
efficiency incentives
Designated truck routes
Tree canopy protection
Street sweeping to reduce dust
Development standards for buildings
and air filtering near air pollution
sources like freeways
Education on air pollutants
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
3
AGENDA
[Page 28]
Plants and Animals
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
New development in currently
New climate policies and updated
Increased impervious surfaces
Potential measures:
vegetated areas, impacting fish
and wildlife habitats
affecting aquatic habitats
(runoff, heat, less shade)
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
Construction could impact
habitat through runoff of soils
and sediments, equipment spills,
and noise
Alternative 1 has the highest
impacts due to location of
growth and more growth on
undeveloped land
critical areas regulations in
Alternatives 2 and 3
More program resources for
tree canopy cover
Incentives for habitat
conservation
Land acquisition in key areas
Adaptive management policies
for critical areas and shorelines
Code that limits clearing and
soil disturbance
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Highest levels of growth in areas Spokane Municipal Code regulations
that are already higher intensity
Greater development intensity
over time due to infill
More middle housing types and
for land use, urban form, and
historic preservation
Potential measures:
Apply cultural resources
discovery policies to full city
limits
Construction noise rules and
other noise standards
Additional development
standards for light and shading
Investments to reduce heat
and noise
ADUs
All the alternatives
have the potential
for significant
adverse impacts to
cultural resources.
No unavoidable
significant adverse
impacts expected to
land use, urban
form, and
environmental
justice.
Some tree, noise, shadow, view,
potential historic and
archeological resource impacts
Alternatives 2 and 3 update
neighborhood and urban design
policies, and add climate
policies, to address development
compatibility, investments in
amenities, and climate resilience
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
4
AGENDA
[Page 29]
Population, Employment, and Housing
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Some housing policy and code
Updates to comprehensive plan
changes from the Housing
Action Plan
More jobs in Northeast Spokane
and Center City
Inadequate housing capacity to
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
meet targets for lower income
bands (under 80% Area Median
Income) under Alternative 1
More opportunities for
moderate and high intensity
residential and mixed-use
development in Alternatives 2
and 3
More housing displacement
impacts under Alternatives 2
and 3, but greater housing
production and diversity
Higher jobs to housing ratio than
current in Alternatives 1 and 3
Alternative 1 has the highest
impacts
under Alternatives 2 and 3 to
address housing targets for all
incomes, displacement, racially
disparate impacts, and housing
barriers
Spokane Housing Action Plan
strategies
StartUp Spokane program for
business resources
Potential measures:
Rental Assistance Fund
Public Development Authority
Land banking
Use of development
agreements
Minimum density
requirements
Incentives for affordable
commercial tenant space
Other measures as detailed in
DEIS section 3.5.3
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives accommodate
Alternatives 2 and 3 meet housing
citywide growth targets
Alternative 1 has the highest
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
impacts due to inadequate
housing capacity for lower
income bands (under 80% Area
Median Income)
targets at all income levels and
address other state requirements
for the periodic update, including
housing and climate planning
Alternatives 2 and 3 are better
aligned with state requirements
and regional, county, and local
plans
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
5
AGENDA
[Page 30]
Transportation
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives would continue
Planned roadway and transit
making pedestrian
improvements
improvements but Alternatives 2 Current transportation impact fee
and 3 may accelerate them
program
All alternatives would continue
Potential measures:
making bicycle improvements
Transportation Demand
Alternative 1 has the highest
Strategies to encourage
vehicle miles traveled per capita
carpooling, vanpooling, transit,
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
walking, biking, and telework
expected to have a slightly
Transportation Systems
higher share of walking
Management and Operations
All alternatives would have
impacts on road intersection
levels of service
and signal timing
Agency partnerships
Public Services
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Increased demand for police,
Adopted Comprehensive Plan,
Alternative 1 would increase
An increased local sales and use tax
fire/emergency medical services,
schools, parks, libraries, and
solid waste
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
demand in the Center City,
existing centers and corridors,
and less developed areas
Alternatives 2 and 3 would
reinforce growth in already
developed areas
Mead School District would see
more student growth under
Alternative 1 and Spokane
School District would see less
Capital Facilities Plan, and other
policies support capital facilities and
public services planning
to support a Public Safety Tax
became effective April 1, 2025
New climate policies under
Alternatives 2 and 3
New Capital Facilities Plan under
Alternatives 2 and 3
Potential measures:
Impact fees for schools, parks,
or fire
Parks fee-in-lieu program
Parkland dedication
opportunities in key locations
Partnerships for education and
childcare spaces and parks and
natural lands
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
6
AGENDA
[Page 31]
Utilities
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Increased demand for
City water conservation programs
Ongoing planning for water and wastewater
utilities due to growth
Increased concentration
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
of utility users under
Alternatives 2 and 3
(better efficiency, but
potential upgrades
needed for energy,
water, and sewer)
systems to address growth and changing
demand
Regular energy planning with Avista
Potential measures:
Specific upgrades
needed would vary by
alternative based on
location of growth
More local energy resources
Energy-efficiency infrastructure
Upgraded stormwater infrastructure
Minimizing runoff
Protection of critical aquifer recharge
areas
Next Steps
The City of Spokane is requesting comments from the
public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the
Draft EIS from December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026.
Comments are due by 5:00 PM, February 18. All written
comments should be directed to:
Tirrell Black, Assistant Planning Director
City of Spokane
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd
Spokane, WA 99201
509.625.6185 | PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
Submittal of comments by email is preferred.
Please include in the subject line “PlanSpokane
2046 Draft EIS Comments.”
A series of public and agency workshops are planned during the Draft EIS comment period. For the latest
information on the workshop topics and times, please see the project website at:
my.spokanecity.org/planspokane/. After public feedback and the selection of a preferred alternative, a
Final Environmental Impact Statement will be written that analyzes the chosen path forward. The Final
EIS will also respond to comments received on the Draft EIS.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
7
AGENDA
[Page 32]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment
Summary
Updated March 2026
The City of Spokane is commencing a periodic update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan as required
by the Growth Management Act (GMA). A “periodic update” is the state’s term for a full review of a
Comprehensive Plan to make sure it is in conformance with any legislative changes to state law. The
update also provides an opportunity to reevaluate the community’s vision for the next twenty years
and how to support that envisioned growth.
As part of PlanSpokane 2046, the City of Spokane is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifies and analyzes a range of alternatives that
describe different ways the City could grow and develop, known as growth alternatives. The City of
Spokane Draft Environmental Impact Statement went out for public comment on December 18,
2025. Over 200 public comments were received by the deadline of February 18, 2026. The City,
following a request for extension of time, then extended the comment period an additional 15 days
to end on March 5, 2026, at 5 p.m.
To support the public in making their comments, community outreach occurred that focused on
providing information on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and how to submit comments.
The PlanSpokane 2046 Draft EIS StoryMap presented the technical analysis in a more accessible
format. A virtual Lunch and Learn occurred on January 13, 2026, providing information on the
PlanSpokane 2046 process and key details about the growth alternatives analyzed. Finally, a series
of PlanSpokane Listening Hours were held, with Planning staff out in the community to answer
question about and discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
All materials for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are available on the project page:
https://my.spokanecity.org/planspokane/draft-eis/
Comment Summary
In total, the City of Spokane received 203 written emails and 2 written comment cards during the
public comment period, with some commenters submitting more than one written statement.
11 Agency and Tribal Governments Comments:
o Coeur d’Alene Tribe
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 33]
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Washington State Department of Transportation (2 written emails)
Spokane County
Spokane Transit Authority
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Natural Resources
City of Spokane Department of Integrated Capital Management (2 written emails)
City of Spokane & Spokane County Historic Preservation Commission (2 written
comments)
4 Neighborhood Councils and Community Assembly Comments:
o Community Assembly (2 written emails)
o Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood Council
o Grandview-Thorpe Neighborhood Council
10 Institutional/Organizational Comments:
o Rockwood Retirement Communities
o 350 Spokane Interfaith Committee (2 written emails)
o Spokane Regional Transportation Council
o Visit Spokane
o Futurewise
o Spokane River Keepers
o Friends of Spokane Trees
o Spokane Falls Community College Environmental Club
o Downtown Spokane Partnership
180 Individuals
Common Themes
Below is a thematic summary of the public comments. Please note that this is a high-level summary
and a full comment analysis and response to comments will be published in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Preference for Alternative 3, 2, or a combination of Alternatives 3 & 2
General support for some elements of Alternative 2, Alternative 3, or both
Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Protection and preservation of natural and historic resources
Public transportation and infrastructure capacity
Potential neighborhood impacts
Affordable housing units
Potential obstacles to local businesses and development due to rising costs, regulatory
barriers
What’s Next
The City of Spokane will consider all the timely comments received during the public comment
period and will be responding to the substantive comments in writing. This will be published in an
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 34]
appendix in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Following SEPA guidance, which regulates
the Environmental Impact Statement process, possible responses that will be considered include:
Explain how the alternatives, including the proposed action, were modified;
Explain how the analysis was supplemented, improved, or modified;
Make factual corrections; or
Explain why the comment does not warrant further response
The public comments will help inform the development of the preferred alternative, along with the
full public engagement to this date and the environmental review within the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The preferred alternative may be composed of some combination of the three
different alternatives, based on feedback. Ultimately, the preferred alternative will shape the final
Comprehensive Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement as the preferred direction for future
growth and investment in the City of Spokane.
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 35]
Exhibit D
Public Engagement Summaries
2025 Community Engagement Summary
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
AGENDA
[Page 36]
P L A N S P O K A N E
2 0 4 6
2025 Community
Engagement
S U M M A R Y
AGENDA
[Page 37]
2
Climate Focus Groups
3
Surveying for Climate
Resiliency
4
Earth Day Workshop
5
Tribal Engagement
6
Future Growth and
Guiding Policies
7
Conclusion
The City of Spokane is conducting a periodic
update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
dubbed PlanSpokane 2046. A “periodic
update” is the state’s term for a full review
of a Comprehensive Plan to make sure it’s
in conformance with any legislative changes
to state law. Due at the end of 2026, the
Periodic Update will identify policies and
future regulations to guide the next 20
years of our city.
2025 was a busy year for community
feedback on Spokane’s future vision,
climate resiliency, future growth, and
guiding policies, with over 3,400 total
community responses. This document
provides a summary of most of the
feedback heard so far, with more
engagement to occur throughout 2026.
→
1
Community Visioning
CONTENT
AGENDA
1
[Page 38]
COMMUNITY VISIONING
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City of
Spokane conducted an early visioning process
to understand what the community wants for
the next twenty years. Over 300 community
members participated in the various
visioning activities, providing insights into how
the City should grow. Ultimately the feedback
will identify the different ways the City can
meet these goals for growth or put differently,
how to meet Spokane’s envisioned future.
Based on community feedback, a draft vision
statement for the Comprehensive Plan has
been identified:
“Spokane aims to foster a vibrant, resilient,
and inclusive city by supporting economic
growth, environmental stewardship, and
the diverse needs of the whole community.
The City is dedicated to ensuring access to
attainable housing, safe streets, and thriving
neighborhoods while inspiring innovation,
cultural vitality, and connection for all
Spokane residents.”
Launched in early January and running
through April, the PlanSpokane 2046 visioning
process resulted in key themes to inform the
future growth and policies for the City of
Spokane. The collective themes are to the
right, with each activity bringing its own
insights.
The vision board highlighted a desire for
nature and environmental stewardship,
community connection, opportunities for
housing and jobs, and improved access to
public spaces. The Community Visioning
Workshop Series and corresponding survey
received feedback pointing towards a
welcoming and livable City with a mix of uses
that
support
thriving
and
connected
neighborhoods. The final Spring Market popup reinforced these ideas, while highlighting
that the City should be walkable/bikeable,
healthy, equitable, and safe.
Read the full PlanSpokane
Community Visioning
Engagement Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/PlanSp
okane-Visioning
VISIONING THEMES
Access to nature
Sustainability and
environmental
stewardship
Healthy and
clean
Welcoming and diverse
Accessible
Family-friendly
Connected
Human-centered
Safe
NATURE
COMMUNITY
Good jobs
Culture and arts
economy
Cutting-edge
New industries
Reuse
INNOVATION
Affordable
Walkable and bikefriendly
Access to
neighborhood services
Attractive
LIVABLE
AGENDA
2
[Page 39]
CLIMATE FOCUS GROUPS
As part of PlanSpokane 2046 effort to incorporate climate and resiliency
policies into the Comprehensive Plan in alignment with HB 1181, the
City of Spokane held focus groups to hear from communities impacted
by climate hazards. Their feedback informed the Climate Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment to bring together data and lived experiences to
identify climate risks and vulnerability in Spokane.
Learn more at
my.spokanecity.org/climateplanning
CLIMATE JUSTICE FOCUS
NORTHEAST SPOKANE FOCUS
The Youth focus group had 11 participants aged
14 to 18, providing insight from a vulnerable
population still in development and who may still
be dependent on adults for their safety and wellbeing.
The Climate Justice focus group had 8 participants from local community-based organizations
representing houseless, Muslim, Asian, BIPOC,
immigrant, refugee, and environmental justice
communities.
The Northeast Spokane focus group had 17
participants who all lived in Northeast Spokane,
an area of the City underrepresented in public
engagement while being highly impacted by
climate hazards.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Empowerment through knowledge is key.
Air quality and wildfire smoke are more
immediate and disruptive climate concerns.
Heat is isolating youth from activities and
social connection.
Strong connection between nature access
and mental health.
Growing anxiety about long-term ecological
shifts and disconnection from natural world.
Public transit and bike infrastructure are
critical services for youth.
Desire for systemic change to provide stability
and not worsen social inequities.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Unhoused individuals, elders, renters,
disabled people, and non-English speakers
are among the most vulnerable.
Language access and communication gaps
are major barriers.
Housing quality and income contribute to
climate vulnerability.
Partner with local nonprofits to support
community trust and cultural relevance.
People often prioritize survival needs over
long-term climate issues.
Increase accountability.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Community connection and shared solutions
can increase community resiliency.
Poor air quality is a major concern.
Lack of shade and extreme heat reduce
access to services.
Practical, community-based climate
education is needed.
Stigma and infrastructure gaps reduce public
transit use.
Need to align development with
environmental goals.
Center equity and accessibility.
YOUTH FOCUS
*A second round of climate focus groups occurred in November and December 2025, with results not yet available by the time of this publication.
A summary of these focus groups (youth, climate justice, food access, and resource constrained) will be available at PlanSpokane.org in early 2026.
AGENDA
3
[Page 40]
SURVEYING FOR CLIMATE
RESILIENCY
“Biggest obstacle is feeling isolated in these attempts at conservation.
Like my efforts don’t matter.”
- Community Climate Planning Survey Respondent
Local, state, and national data and community lived experiences are all integral in understanding
how to best support local resiliency in Spokane. During key times of the climate and resiliency
planning effort, two community-wide surveys were created to learn from those who live, work, and
visit in Spokane.
The Community Climate Planning Survey
asked community members to identify
climate hazards and impacts in Spokane as
well as future desires.
Read the full Community Climate
Planning Survey Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneClimate-Survey
The Community Climate Policy Survey
then built upon the prior community
feedback to identify potential policy
decisions.
Read the full Community Climate
Policy Survey Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneClimate-Policy-Survey
AGENDA
4
[Page 41]
COMMUNITY CLIMATE
SURVEY
CLIMATE POLICY
SURVEY
1,573 RESPONSES
1,419 RESPONSES
DECEMBER 6, 2024 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2025
JULY 21 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025
KEY TAKEAWAYS
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Wildfires, extreme heat, and intense storms identified as top three
hazards of concern now, with extreme heat, wildfire, and smoke
from wildfires as top concerns for the next 20 years.
Only 14.91% of respondents indicated having not been personally
impacted by any of the identified climate hazards.
Water, human health, and food systems were collectively ranked as
the most important climate and resiliency topics.
Public investment and infrastructure was the top ranked type of
policy, with regulations ranked the lowest.
Costs and time were identified as primary obstacles in reducing
household environmental impacts.
Themes for future actions the City should consider include:
Lead by Example
Water Conservation and Waste Management
Community Collaboration and Engagement
Urban Green Spaces
Active Transportation
Disaster Preparedness
Equal Access
Sustainable Development
Potential solutions to increase Spokane’s resiliency included water and
waste reduction, incentives for more sustainable upgrades, tree
management, and more trees and greenspace.
Future policies should be prioritized based on reduction of
environment harm, community health benefits, co-benefits,
feasibility, and cost considerations.
Rising costs of living and basic needs and changes to recreational
activities were the top felt impacts within the past five years.
Agriculture and food systems were ranked as most at risk from
extreme weather and climate impacts in Spokane.
AGENDA
5
[Page 42]
EARTH DAY WORKSHOP
On April 22, 2025, the City of Spokane hosted an Earth Day Community Workshop to
learn from and share with Spokane’s community. Twenty-one community members
shared their experiences with climate hazards and how we can support a more
resilient Spokane.
The workshop was a drop-in style event with posters at
4 stations, where attendees engaged in activities,
interacted with the Climate Vulnerability Index online
mapping tool, and were able to have in-depth
conversations with staff members. Feedback received
during the workshop informed the Climate Risk &
Vulnerability Assessment and will support the
development of future policies for a resilient and
adaptive Spokane.
Read the full Earth Day
Workshop Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneEarth-Day
Key takeaways from the drop-in workshop include:
Alternative transportation options and green
space/tree protection were ranked as the top
climate pollution reduction actions.
Preserve, restore, and expand nature was ranked
as the top climate resilience action.
Supporting local, sustainable food systems and
organizing community received the most support as
individual actions to support climate resiliency.
Support for increased and improved bike and
pedestrian infrastructure.
Attendees wanted to expand public transportation
and promote connectivity.
Support for infill and mixed-use development.
AGENDA
Promote water conservation throughout the City.
6
[Page 43]
Read the full Tribal Engagement
Workgroup Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneTribal-Workgroup
In early 2025, the City of Spokane launched a Tribal
Engagement Workgroup (TEW) to ensure that
Indigenous voices and knowledge systems shape its
climate planning and inform the City’s 2026
Comprehensive Plan. The TEW brought together
regional Tribes and urban Native organizations in a
culturally grounded process led by Kauffman &
Associates, Inc. (KAI), a Native-owned consulting firm.
Prioritize funding for Native-led resilience hubs,
food systems, and youth programs.
Embed cultural infrastructure - gardens,
sweat lodges, community gathering spaces - into
neighborhood planning.
Establish an Indigenous advisory council with
co-governance authority in climate planning.
Reframe climate indicators to include cultural,
spiritual, and relational measures of
wellbeing.
Expand data collection to include Indigenousdefined metrics, oral histories, and story maps.
Develop tailored emergency management
strategies for Native families across Spokane.
→
Over the course of four sessions and intervening
conversations, TEW participants identified climate
vulnerabilities rooted in the lived experiences of
Native communities, including loss of cultural
access, urban invisibility, health disparities,
water insecurity, and gaps in emergency
planning. They called for a broader definition of
vulnerability that includes spiritual, cultural, and
intergenerational dimensions and stressed the need
for Indigenous co-governance and investment in
Native-led solutions.
Recommendations for policy development:
TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT
AGENDA
7
[Page 44]
FUTURE GROWTH AND
GUIDING POLICIES
The City of Spokane held a community workshop series on future
growth and guiding policies in November 2025. These in-person
workshops included discussion, mapping exercises, and feedback
opportunities related to various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Over 100 community members participated in the workshop series,
which included one meeting in each City Council District, as well as a
citywide meeting downtown.
In addition to informational posters, the
workshops included station activities to
gather feedback from attendees. Stations
included questions on guiding policies,
displacement, a proposed land use schema,
and the three Growth Alternatives being
evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Mapping exercises on mixed-use
zoning and transportation amenities
created spatial information to inform onthe-ground
proposals.
Climate
and
resiliency feedback was also received,
including on City actions, important topics,
environmental justice, and the prioritization
of future policies.
When asked about topics of importance
to be integrated into the City of Spokane’s
next twenty years, key themes from the
community included:
Accessibility
Employment and job creation
A full summary will
be available at
PlanSpokane.org
once finalized
Revitalization
More third places and community
connection
Parks and access to nature
Bikeable/walkable neighborhoods
Affordable housing
AGENDA
8
[Page 45]
→
CONCLUSION
There’s even more work ahead in 2026...
In addition to the larger engagement efforts
mentioned above, the City of Spokane has been
busy popping up at community events, presenting
before Neighborhood Councils, and meeting with
organizations and partner agencies to hear from
the community. Staff have also presented before
City Council, Spokane Plan Commission, Climate
Resilience and Sustainability Board, Transportation
Commission, Housing Action Subcommittee, and
numerous other City commissions and boards.
Have a group that may be interested in hearing a
presentation? Does your organization want a
tailored discussion about PlanSpokane 2046? Have
an event where staff can attend? Reach out to the
Planning Team at PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org to
inquire about availability.
Opportunities for public feedback in early 2026 include the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Chapter Review processes. Feedback from these components will then result in the selection of Preferred
Alternative and Final Environmental Impact Statement, as well as final goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Final adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan is tentatively slated for the end of 2026.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement with different ways the City can grow in order
to meet state requirements and the community vision will be issued in December 2025,
with a 60 day public comment period. This document compares potential ways the City
can grow, allowing community members to provide feedback on Spokane’s future.
Community input will help decisionmakers select the Preferred Alternative, which is the
growth strategy for Spokane’s next twenty years, in early 2026.
Chapter Review
The City’s Comprehensive Plan is being updated with revised and new goals and policies
to support community needs. Draft versions of chapters are available for public
feedback at PlanSpokane.org under “Chapter Review”. Comments can help direct
language and identify potential gaps in future policy direction. New chapters and
language revised based on community feedback will periodically be available
throughout early 2026.
AGENDA
9
[Page 46]
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org
Questions or comments? Email the Planning Team at
PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
AGENDA
[Page 47]
PlanSpokane
Future Growth and Guiding Policies
Engagement Summary
December 2025
AGENDA
[Page 48]
Table of Contents
Background
3
Community Workshop Series
4
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Station 2: Displacement
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane – Transportation
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
Next Steps
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
Appendices
14
District 1 Memo
District 2 Memo
District 3 Memo
Community-Wide Memo
Workshop Posters
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
2
AGENDA
[Page 49]
Background
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update to its Comprehensive Plan, the City of
Spokane has been seeking public feedback on
the City’s next twenty years throughout 2025.
While regular updates to the Comprehensive
Plan have occurred, this will be the first
substantial update since the Comprehensive
Plan was first adopted in 2001. With the
significant population growth and changing local
factors Spokane has experienced since then,
this update provides the community with an
opportunity to reevaluate how they want the
City to grow. The goals of this update are to meet
all state legislative requirements adopted since
2017, incorporate community input around
changing needs and wants, and to streamline
the Plan to make it more user friendly.
What is a Comprehensive
Plan?
A Comprehensive Plan is the community’s
vision for how the city grows and invests. It
is mandated by state law requiring a “road
map” for fast-growing cities, known as the
Growth Management Act. Spokane must
have a Comprehensive Plan to manage
population growth, with goals that include
reducing sprawl, supporting efficient
multimodal transportation, protecting the
environment, and many more.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision
for the city – looking at a horizon of twenty
years. It guides implementation through
Capital projects, City programs, and
regulations.
Being the first substantial update since 2001, the
City of Spokane has determined that this
proposal is likely to have a significant and potentially negative impact on the environment. As such,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c) and will be
prepared as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 effort. The first step of the EIS process is known as
“scoping”. Both before and during the scoping comment period, the City of Spokane Department of
Planning and Economic Development provided opportunities for the community to be engaged in
the process of identifying the future vision for Spokane’s next twenty years. The Community
Visioning Engagement Summary provides a recap of the feedback heard.
Once the overall vision for the future is determined, the next step of the EIS process is to evaluate
different ways the City can meet that vision while also accommodating future growth. To that end,
the City of Spokane held a community workshop series on future growth and guiding policies in
November 2025 for initial feedback on different ways the City of Spokane can grow, as well as the
goals and policies to get us there.
More information about the PlanSpokane 2046
Periodic Update can be found at PlanSpokane.org
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
3
AGENDA
[Page 50]
Community Workshop Series
At the beginning of 2025, community members provided invaluable feedback to create a 20-year
vision for the City of Spokane. Since then, there has been ongoing work to identify different ways to
reach that vision. To present the community with those options on how the City can grow, and
receive feedback on goals and policies, a community workshop series on future growth and guiding
policies was held in November 2025. One workshop was held in each City Council District, with one
community-wide workshop held downtown. Over
100 individuals attended one or more of the
workshops, providing valuable feedback to help
shape the future of the City of Spokane.
Figure 1. Community members participate in the District 1
Community Workshop.
These in-person workshops included discussion,
mapping exercises, and feedback opportunities
related to various aspects of the Comprehensive
Plan, including the new element of climate and
resiliency. Each station sought reactions and
comments on how community members wanted
to shape the next twenty years. Kids activities and
catered food was also available.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
After learning more about the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update and Environmental Impact
Statement process through informational posters, the first activity station revolved around the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the current Chapter Review process. Community members
were asked to identify what topics they want to make sure are addressed in the updated
Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the currently proposed amendments.
Themes from the four community workshops include:
Accessibility (housing, public spaces, “sittable”
neighborhoods)
Incentives to revitalize vacant properties
Bikeable streets, including protected bike lanes
Art districts
Address land speculation
Indoor swimming pools
Incentives for affordable and mixed-use
housing
Address employment and job creation
More “third places” for community
connection
Levels of service for fire safety
Daycare centers and support
Creating neighborhood identities
More greenways and trails
Greater civic engagement, involvement, and
transparency
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
4
AGENDA
[Page 51]
Conservation/migration corridors and natural
playgrounds
Reduced dependency on single occupancy
vehicles
Context sensitive design standards
Allow for more mixed uses in neighborhoods
to support walkability, create local “hubs”
Create/support quality and beautiful places
to live
Support for unhoused residents, including
work programs
Sidewalk and pedestrian safety
Coordination of road construction to
prevent multiple roadway maintenance in
the same direction
Station 2: Displacement
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Spokane
has completed analysis on racially disparate impacts and displacement risk to meet state legislative
requirements (HB 1220). After being presented with the
three different types of displacement – physical,
economic, and cultural – community members were
asked to help brainstorm causes of housing and small
business displacement, as well as how the City of
Spokane could address those causes.
Causes identified included high housing costs and lack
of housing inventory to keep up with population
increases, mobile home parks being replaced,
businesses leaving and/or not having patrons due to
perception of safety or vandalism, lack of inclusive
and accessible transit and public spaces, impact of
taxes, buildings being demolished for parking lots or
shopping centers, vacant or underutilized lots, increase
in housing costs due to surrounding development,
lack of pedestrian infrastructure, high insurance
costs/losing property insurance due to wildfire risk,
corporate rental ownership, and climate risks (heat,
lack of trees).
Figure 2. City of Spokane Displacement Risk Map from the
Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Report (2025).
Potential actions to address the causes included streamlining permit processing, the City being
involved in public housing development, replacing existing housing with affordable multifamily housing, create supportive zoning before development is expected to occur, wildfire risk
mitigation (to address insurance issues), rental costs management, increase transportation
options (pedestrian friendly streets/bus routes/road access), and support community resiliency
to climate hazards.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
5
AGENDA
[Page 52]
Station 3: Land Use Schema
One aspect of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update includes updating the land use schema for
the City of Spokane, with the goal of reducing the number of land use categories. Land use is
essentially what kinds of uses can be built where, and community members were asked to provide
feedback on the proposed land use categories: Urban Agriculture, Residential Low, Residential High,
Commercial, Centers & Corridors, Institutional, Downtown, Industrial, and Open Space. Community
members were asked what uses they would like to see in each proposed land use and where they
should be located.
Urban Agriculture
• Allow flower growers, small vegetable and fruit farmers market-style food production
• Locate to avoid impacts of potential pesticides
• Preserve agriculture in the city by only allowing agricultural uses
Residential Low
• Ensure there is human-scale and human serving design, walkable third places, a transition
between low- and high-density areas, and that the scale of residential and commercial
uses match
• Allow parking, community gardens, small mixed uses (cafes, ice cream parlors, bookstores,
medical uses like a dentist), indoor community pools, community gathering spaces, and
professional offices
• Do not allow gas stations
• Create a process of neighborhood input on project-by-project basis for non-standard uses
• Develop incentives for neighborhood businesses
• Prioritize adaptive reuse over new development
• Locate near centers and corridors and other high intensity uses
Residential High
• Ensure accessible housing (no stairs)
• Expand into existing lower scale residential, such as near transit or in close proximity to
amenities
• Have a minimum density
Commercial
• Expand mixed uses
• Leverage vacant commercial areas to add business or apartments
• Establish zoning requirements for gas stations/convenience stores related to sober living
and other affordable housing services
Centers & Corridors
• Allow multi-unit housing and trade/live-work makerspaces
• Do not allow drive throughs, gas stations, convenience stores, hostile architecture, or
single-unit homes
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
6
AGENDA
[Page 53]
Locate throughout Division once NS Corridor is complete and traffic reduces
Downtown
• Allow taller buildings and larger business spaces
Institutional
• Incentivize apartments
• Allow community pools
Industrial
• Encourage adaptive reuse of existing spaces
Open Space
• Allow undeveloped/natural parks with trails, mountain biking, indoor community pools
• Ensure enough parks/trails for those living in dense areas/apartments to have outdoor
access, as well as accessible open spaces
• The full length of the Spokane River should be a public park
• Prioritize passive natural spaces
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
A significant result of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update and Environmental Impact Statement
will be the selection of a Preferred Alternative – the desired direction for growth and prioritization
for the City of Spokane’s next twenty years. To identify that
Preferred Alternative, the City must study different Growth
Alternatives, which are different ways to address population
growth, economic goals, and the community vision. More detailed
analysis and comparisons will be available during the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement public comment period
expected to kick off in December 2025. This poster station allowed
for an initial reaction to the potential options.
Community members were presented with the three Growth
Alternatives being evaluated as part of the PlanSpokane 2046
Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
Figure 3. Community members participate in the
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state
District 2 Community Workshops.
legislation, Alternative 2 (Distributed and Balanced) and
Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed out of earlier visioning and scoping
engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a snapshot of environmental impact
evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives, community members were asked to vote
on their preferred growth strategy.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
7
AGENDA
[Page 54]
Alternative 2 received the most votes with 25. Alternative 3 came in second with 7 votes. One
vote selected a middle ground between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 did not
receive any votes (presumably due to community understanding that it does not meet all state
legislative requirements).
Rather than voting for a specific Alternative, most community members provided comments on the
City of Spokane’s future growth. The Preferred Alternative can be a combination of elements of the
different Growth Alternatives, with these comments providing direction on what aspects were
viewed positively from each alternative.
In general, community members liked the interconnectedness of Alternative 2, but also saw the
benefit of the Center City focus of Alternative 3 on businesses, community safety, and more
housing. Full comments can be found in the workshop-specific memos in the appendix of this summary.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use
designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different sizes and
scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City.
Figure 4. Mixed-use descriptions provided for the Map Your Future Spokane exercise. A higher resolution image can be found in the Workshop Posters
appendix.
In general, MU-TOD was located along Division/Ruby, Market Street, Mission Avenue, North
Monroe, near Shadle Library on Wellesley, in parts of downtown and Cliff-Cannon, Hamilton and
the northernmost portion of Nevada Street, and in areas along 29th.
MU-1 was located in Hillyard, Nevada Heights just east of Division, the middle of Cliff-Cannon, north
Five Mile Prairie, in parts of Audubon/Downriver and West Central, between Northwest and
Balboa/South Indian Trail, North Monroe, near Shadle Library on Wellesley, and downtown.
MU-2 was located in Nevada Heights, the middle of Bemiss, adjacent to Chief Garry Park within the
Chief Garry Park neighborhood, the northwest corner of Manito/Cannon Hill, north of Comstock,
Shiloh Hills, Northwest, North Hill, along Indian Trail Road, and in areas along 29th.
MU-3 was located in the middle of Hillyard and Bemiss, multiple locations in Cliff-Cannon, on West
Sunset Boulevard, Audubon/Downriver, Northwest, and along the edges of Manito/Cannon Hill.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
8
AGENDA
[Page 55]
Additional comments about mixed-uses included:
Provide more uses in proximity to housing to
reduce distance/need for transportation
There’s currently a lack of affordable and larger
retail near neighborhoods, not just small
No more drive throughs
More intensity along arterials, transition to
higher commercial, and then allow residential
Need a Latah-Cannon Corridor Plan to address
traffic, 195 and I-90 ramp
More health and transportation access in West
Central
Encourage trades academy
Increase pedestrian/bike infrastructure along
Northwest Boulevard
Trade and makerspaces in West Central
Mobility connectivity for all modes in East
Hillyard is a local priority
MU-2 should be everywhere
No mixed-use in neighborhoods, concerned
over exploitative development
Need parks and trails in Hillyard
Designated business district/center/corridor
down east Broadway of West Central
Support the creation of 24-hour daycare
Create protections against displacement in
Chief Garry Park around City Line stops,
including increasing resources for community
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane – Transportation
Through a mapping exercise to indicate preferred development types and street upgrades,
community members were asked to identify what type of street improvements they want to see
along major transit stops, with street trees and greater connectivity being consistent themes. Full
summaries can be found in the workshop-specific memos in the appendix of this summary.
District 1
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
District 2
December 2025
9
AGENDA
[Page 56]
District 3
Citywide
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Another significant component of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update is the integration of
climate and resiliency policies into the Comprehensive Plan to align with recent state legislation.
Climate Planning efforts have been ongoing, with this workshop series providing an opportunity to
bring all elements of the update together for community input. Workshop attendees were first
asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to take to support local climate
resiliency.
Key themes from the feedback include tree canopy expansion and protection; resilient and
equitable development; climate resilience education and community engagement; water
conservation and quality; energy efficiency and weatherization; reducing car reliance; air
quality and pollution reduction; fire safety and mitigation; access and preservation to natural
spaces; and housing and infrastructure.
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were presented with
top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning engagement, including wildfire
smoke and extreme heat, water conservation, human health, food systems, tree canopy and green
spaces, transportation and infrastructure, education, collaboration, and financial barriers. With
those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics of importance.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
10
AGENDA
[Page 57]
Topics identified include:
Address financial barriers
Do not exclude businesses from
SpokaneScape program
Greater bike infrastructure and connectivity
Increased shade
Convert unused city property to green spaces
Indoor spaces to escape to during weather
extremes
Trees and native landscaping, including
potential for fruit trees as street trees
Balance between infill development and trees
Green infrastructure/swales
Mental and physical health
Protect mature trees and iconic basalt rocks
Require parking
Incentives for tree planting in the north of the
city
Recognition of limits to growth
Restrict wood burning fireplaces to improve air
quality
Growth numbers should consider possibility of
climate refugees
Food security
Local community solutions to address climate
hazards and resiliency
Impact of Artificial Intelligence
Water conservation
Walkable neighborhoods
More resources directed to conservation
programs
Support creation of more efficient building
construction
Active role of City in tree planting programs
Education programs to support local resiliency
Intersection of natural and built environment
Increase accountability, including for
businesses
Maintenance of street trees
Weatherization/support new windows for
historic homes
“Dead internet” greenhouse gas emissions
Adjust development requirements to allow
more room for trees
Faster and cheaper transit (including through
bus-only lanes and in Latah Valley)
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Environmental justice, as defined by state law,
means the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to
development, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It
includes addressing disproportionate health and
environmental impacts. Community members
were presented with the definition and ways to
assess environmental justice, in order to support
state required policies within the Comprehensive
Plan.
Figure 5. Community members participate in the District 3 Community
Workshops.
Workshop attendees were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice. Key themes included supporting a safe and connected transportation
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
11
AGENDA
[Page 58]
system that does not rely on single-occupancy vehicles, targeting heat mitigation and resiliency
to vulnerable populations, expanding green infrastructure and tree canopy, neighborhood
investment without displacement, and City-funded resiliency investments that support
impacted neighborhoods and communities.
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort will
include a prioritization process, which will help ensure that selected policies can be implemented
and align with state requirements. Presented
with the options of Resilience, Equity, Climate
Pollution Reduction, Logistics, and Risk,
community members were asked to identify
the criteria they believed should be weighted
more heavily than others.
Figure 6. Community members participate in the Citywide Community
Workshops.
Resilience came in first, with 21 votes,
followed by Equity (16 votes) and Climate
Pollution Reduction (15 votes). Logistics
received 8 votes, while Risk had a total of 4
votes.
In addition to what was listed, community members were then asked to identify any other criteria
that should be considered:
Build equity into each criterion
How to reduce homelessness/outdoor
sleeping to make people less vulnerable
Emphasize natural environment as a
component of resilience criteria
Improvement to tree canopy
Inequitable impact of policy
Balancing costs and benefits to ensure
prospective business ventures aren’t impacted
Tighten controls on vehicle emissions
Legislative control to create solutions
Prioritize policies with City action rather than
informational or “encouraging” resident action
Without resilience, we will have a hard time
delivering on the other policies
Clear out underbrush in fire risk areas
Banning of wood burning fireplaces
Spreading out of affordable housing, “stop
consolidating poverty”
Allowing for shelters near services
Next Steps
Feedback received during the community workshops on future growth and guiding policies will
inform amendments to goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as discussion around
the chosen growth strategy (or Preferred Alternative) for Spokane’s next twenty years. Community
members will have the opportunity to take a deeper dive into the details of and comparisons
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
12
AGENDA
[Page 59]
between the Growth Alternatives after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in December 2025, which will include a formal public comment period. More information about
the Draft EIS will be available at PlanSpokane.org upon release. Final adoption of the PlanSpokane
2046 Comprehensive Plan is expected in the later part of 2026.
Figure 7. PlanSpokane 2046 process timeline
Community feedback will be accepted throughout the entire PlanSpokane 2046 process, from
helping select the Preferred Alternative to weighing in on proposed goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
We invite your participation:
Visit the project webpage at PlanSpokane.org to learn more about the planning process
Learn more about the Climate Planning efforts at my.spokanecity.org/climateplanning
Subscribe to the PlanSpokane monthly newsletter to receive timely updates
Attend future meetings and hearings hosted by the City of Spokane
Provide written comments or ask questions to the Planning team by emailing
PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
13
AGENDA
[Page 60]
Appendices –
District 1 Memo
District 2 Memo
District 3 Memo
Community-Wide Memo
Workshop Posters
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
14
AGENDA
[Page 61]
Memo
Re:
District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on
November 12, 2025 at Yasuhara Middle School. Approximately 22 community members
attended. Feedback received at each station activity is summarized below. A full
engagement summary of the workshop series will be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Move civic engagement
More districts for city council members
More government transparency
Incentives for empty properties on Division following BRT implementation
More third places
Continue partnerships with housing services and neighborhood councils
Bikeable streets.
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Consider the impacts of housing costs because of Division BRT.
Get ahead of zoning along the corridor for middle/multi-unit housing.
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
Page | 1
AGENDA
[Page 62]
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Residential Low:
o Allow professional office
o Allow MU-3 uses (like The Scoop)
Residential High:
o Have minimum density
Centers and Corridors:
o Do not allow single-unit homes
Open Space:
o Include intentional passive recreation
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 5 votes, and Alternative 3 received 1 vote.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Evacuation routes need for Latah
Valley area/Vinegar Flats
Distribute growth to remove silos
between neighborhood and
connected the community.
Capitalize on larger roads to
connect centers and places people
visit
Address Division BRT fully in Alt. 2
and 3.
Require parking for large housing
developments to be located within
garages/parking structure.
Turn parking lots into garages for a
better use of land, especially
around gathering places (e.g.
arena).
Build up, two story buildings waste
land potential
Have services in all areas of the
city.
Lack of ability to make left turns on
Division can cause vacant lots/lack
of businesses/patrons.
Alternative 2 seems to be a natural
approach to what will likely occur
naturally.
Vinegar Flats has a potential for
job growth (mini Hillyard).
Page | 2
AGENDA
[Page 63]
Vinegar Flats is separate from
Latah Valley area and should be
treated as having different
potential
Build up, not out; focus on
downtown and where growth
already exists.
Base Latah Strategy on
infrastructure findings for
connectivity.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD along Division; MU-1 in Hillyard,
Nevada Heights just east of Division, and in the middle of Cliff-Cannon; MU-2 in Nevada
Heights, the middle of Bemiss, adjacent to Chief Garry Park within the Chief Garry Park
neighborhood, the northwest corner of Manito/Cannon Hill, and the north of Comstock; MU3 in the middle of Hillyard and Bemiss, the southeast corner of Bemiss, multiple locations in
Cliff-Cannon, and along the edges of Manito/Cannon Hill.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
Make transportation less required (most uses in close proximity to households)
Lack of affordable and larger retail near neighborhoods, highlighting Bemiss
Mobility connectivity for all modes in East Hillyard is a local priority
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting improved crosswalks and
wider sidewalks along Northwest Boulevard; street trees, lighting and faster bus times
around Vinegar Flats; improved crosswalks Downtown; more street trees on Market Street;
separated bike lanes, improved crosswalks, lighting, and bus shelters along Division between
the Ruby interchange and Wellesley; lighting and wider sidewalks in the Logan
neighborhood, south of Wellesley; and improved bike connections and faster bus times in
Hillyard.
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
Better crosswalks on Wellesley at Driscoll Boulevard
Better lighting along bus routes including Route 28
Hays Park needs sidewalks
Bus shelter at Bridgeport and Glass
Page | 3
AGENDA
[Page 64]
Improve crosswalks at Glass
Need a bus route on Freya in Wellesley area
Fix Hairball intersection at Main/Monroe/Spokane Falls
Pedestrian bridge is needed on Rowan to cross NSC
Bridgeport near Division, people park half on sidewalk and half on street
Fire access at Euclid into Minnehaha needs to be improved
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Facilities and accommodations for
dogs/pets.
More shade on sidewalks.
Reduction of VMTs through denser
housing and more walkability.
Locally fund ore SpoCanopy.
Increase LOS for active
transportation, reduced LOS for
cars.
More shade on trails and bus
stops.
Non-shaded areas and sidewalks
are a burn risk for kids (toys,
slides, etc.).
Water conservation should not be
focused just on residents.
More fuel reduction in WUI areas.
Continue tree canopy program.
More QR codes around town (like
parks) so people can get
connected to information.
Less black asphalt that raises heat,
more white concrete.
More sidewalk connectivity.
More spending on education on
water usage information.
Removed trees need to be
replanted in that area (not
elsewhere in the City).
Areas with lower tree canopy need
higher tree requirements.
More lawn alternative promotion,
not just SpokaneScape.
New Hillyard there are big oil tanks
that burp oil smells into homes,
cause air quality issues.
Make the things that have and
have not worked known; tell
residents about known issues.
More mail fliers of education, not
just online.
More education on fire wise and
fuel reduction programs the City is
already doing.
Install solar panels over parking
lots.
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Page | 4
AGENDA
[Page 65]
Trees:
o Require in new development
o Leave existing trees in new development
o Active City involvement in tree planting (don’t require residents to request
trees, ask them if they want trees)
Oversight of street trees to support maintenance and growth to ensure trees live
Swales
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Connect bicycle network and make e-bike traffic less dangerous.
Expand the transportation network for bike and pedestrian connectivity.
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received
1vote, Equity received 1 vote, Climate Pollution Reduction received 1 vote, Logistics received
1 vote, and Risk received 1 vote.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Prioritize policies with city action rather than informational or “encouraging” resident
action.
Improvement to tree canopy (increase oversight and assistance, reduction of water
costs to water trees, tree health support)
Page | 5
AGENDA
[Page 66]
Memo
Re:
District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 5,
2025 at Ferris High School. Approximately 40 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Don’t use broad terms in Comprehensive Plan
Levels of service, especially for fire
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Affordable Housing
Address vandalism to support
businesses
Concerned about gangs for both
housing and small businesses
Lack of pedestrian infrastructure
and transit
High insurance for homes in the
WUI, mitigate wilfire risk
Corporate rental ownership
Tree desert/heat island in certain
neighborhoods
Increase tree canopy
Codes that require solar cooling
Control rents
Increase bus routes
Create more pedestrian friendly
streets
Build roads before new
development
High housing costs
AGENDA
[Page 67]
Losing property insurance
City should work with the State on
housing costs and insurance loss
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Urban Agriculture:
o Preserve, no other use allowed.
Residential Low:
o Allow businesses catered toward people walking
o Allow neighborhood input on a project-by-project level for other uses
o Allow coffee shops, gathering spaces, and bookstores
o Develop incentives for neighborhood businesses
o Prioritize historic/adaptive reuse over new development (both commercial
and residential)
o Commercial and residential can coexist as long as the scale and auto vs
pedestrian uses match each other in intensity.
o Locate near centers and corridors and other high intensity uses.
Commercial:
o Zoning requirements for gas stations and convenience stores related to
sober living and other affordable housing services.
Centers and Corridors:
o Do not allow drive-thrus, gas stations or any other auto-oriented uses.
Open Space:
o Should include parks and natural open space.
o Preserve open space.
o Protect trees during development, including on private property.
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, one vote was cast for a middle option between Alternative 1 and Alternative
2, Alternative 2 received 6 votes, and Alternative 3 received 2 votes.
AGENDA
[Page 68]
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Direct growth to
Garland/Perry/Downtown/areas
already with growth and not within
neighborhoods with limited
parking and emergency access.
Direct growth away from mature
trees and rock formations.
Distributed housing and
transportation needed.
Alternative 2 & 3 should both focus
on TOD and increased affordable
housing.
Large subdivisions should have
traffic lights to exit to
accommodate surrounding
growth.
Duplexes built and sold as
duplexes are not selling/not
affordable; concerns over
affordable housing in alternatives.
Parking requirements should be 1
space per unit.
Need safe crossings to bus
stops/park and rides.
High intensity housing can be
isolating, community hubs are
needed.
Increase housing downtown; get
more people visiting downtown.
Locate mix-use along NS Corridor
interchanges.
Address Airway Heights growth
impact on access to water.
Concerns over Division traffic and
conflict of businesses, curb cuts.
Infrastructure needs to be in place
before continuing to allow new
development (Freya Lower South
Hill highlighted).
More mixed-uses everywhere; less
areas with single uses.
Locate employment and industrial
uses on edges of the city.
Provide/expect commercial uses to
pop up around employment.
Provide more attractions; things
for groups/teens to do together.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, participants had few locations they wanted mixed-uses to be located. However, MUTOD was identified for Market Street, North Monroe, and portions of Ruby. MU-3 was
identified on West Sunset Boulevard.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
MU-2 should be everywhere.
No neighborhood businesses, there is no parking.
AGENDA
[Page 69]
No Latah-Cannon Corridor plan; all the traffic, no plan.
No mixed use in neighborhoods, protect neighborhood from exploitive
development.
Want to see more intensity at arterials, then higher commercial, and finally
residential.
Want a transportation plan for Cliff-Cannon; there’s no future plan considering 195
and I-90 ramp.
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting street trees along Ruby and
Division, as well as downtown; improved bike connections north of Francis Avenue in the
northwest, in South Logan at Mission and Hamilton, near Spokane Community College, and
near Ray Street, Regal, and other areas in South Spokane; separate bike lanes at Wellesley
and Driscoll Boulevard, within Latah Valley, and in various locations near downtown and just
south of I-90 in the southwest; bus route improvements near Vinegar Flats and within Latah
Valley; bus shelters throughout Latah Valley and on Ray Street; speed management along
Grand Boulevard; and new and improved crosswalks throughout the southwest. Additional
improvements, largely in in the southwest, include emergency services, improving bridges,
new sidewalks, fixing of roads, lighting, and new intersection.
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Create trails that are more like dog
parks
Support engaged and active
citizenry for resiliency
Expand safe bike and walking to
grocery stores
Responsible and equitable
development
Increase density and make it
easier for residents to do that
themselves
More trees and shade along trails
Ban wood burning fireplaces
Create urban public garden inside
parks
Encourage TOD
Encourage safe streets for bikes
and pedestrians; protected bike
lanes, more crosswalks
Expand bike in infrastructure
More walkable neighborhoods (i.e.
29th and Grand area
Canon area lost lots of trees, not
replanted by new development
People drink PFAS and then it
moves through sewer pipes and
treatment
AGENDA
[Page 70]
Sewer infrastructure in Canon is
old and breaks often
Lack of parking becomes a safety
and resiliency issue
Incentivize more tree canopy in
lower areas but maintain aging
tree canopy (especially in aging
demographics)
Water quality of PFAS in mystic
falls/garden spring due to
development
More dense development so there
is less cross through traffic to
sprawling suburbs
Enable neighborhoods to create
more social capital and be able to
take action and help issues
Incentivize responsible
development
Solar on rooftops before green
spaces
Money, investment, and code is
very car focuses and needs to be
more holistic
Toolkit for tactical urbanism
(empower communities to
improve areas themselves)
Life flight should use major
corridors to reduce residential and
wildlife noise pollution
Expand historic preservation,
create culture like Canon
Fix challenging areas for biking
(hills make it impossible and
dangerous to bike, even with ebikes)
NSC will bring more car
infrastructure and needs to be
more resilient and multimodal
Development should not be in
neighborhoods
Maintain our strong tree canopies
Need more protected bike lanes
Extend existing bike lanes, don’t
just stop the bike lanes suddenly
Development should not remove
trees, plants, and Spokane’s
distinct environment
Rain retention facilities
requirements should be stronger
Bike lanes with multiple lines helps
enforce walking
Ensure social capital is created
during development
Green roofs
More walking paths
Stronger codes to maintain tree
canopy
Need to have an
acknowledgement of growth/our
limits
AGENDA
[Page 71]
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Recognize limits to growth.
Prioritize protection of mature trees and iconic basalt rocks.
The new infill law is destroying mature trees and neighborhoods.
No mixed-use growth in the middle of neighborhoods.
Bike infrastructure
Walkable neighborhoods
Public Transportation in Latah Valley
Protect trees
Require parking spaces for all units, change setbacks to 5-feet, change lots from 20
to 50 foot minimum.
Sponsor new windows for historic homes.
Convert unused city property to public pea patches.
Growth numbers should consider possibility of climate refugees.
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Plant more trees
More bike lanes in all communities
Community infrastructure built now to we have it when growth occurs
Sound walls along freeways to protect housing
Reducing pollution in low-income areas
Walkable neighborhoods for everyone
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 6
votes, Equity received 3 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 4 votes, Logistics
received 1 vote, and Risk received 2 votes.
Page | 6
AGENDA
[Page 72]
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Without resilience, we will have a hard time delivering on the other policies
Clear out underbrush in fire risk areas.
Inequitable impact e.g. when you add a historic district, you reduce the value of the
homes surrounding the historic district.
Ban wood burning fireplaces.
Tighten controls on vehicle emissions.
Stop consolidating poverty; spread out affordable housing outside of poverty-stricken
neighborhoods.
Balancing costs and benefits to ensure prospective business ventures aren’t too
impacts.
Stop allowing shelters in areas with no services.
Page | 7
AGENDA
[Page 73]
Memo
Re:
District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 18,
2025 at Salk Middle School. Approximately 20 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
• For elderly and disabled residents,
• Accessibility (housing and public
walkable also means sittable
space)
• Context sensitive design
• Mixed-use housing in
standards, especially in historic
neighborhoods to make more
centers
“hubs” instead of strip malls
• Sidewalk safety (e.g. electric scoots
• More greenways and trails like
and conflicts with pedestrians)
Centennial; need north/south
• Require more design variety within
connections
new developments
• Protected bike lanes, not just
• Create quality and beautiful places
painted ones
to live
• Allow for more mixed use in
• Less dependence on vehicles
established neighborhoods
• Allow for or encourage local
• Allow for more walkable
services, restaurants, or grocery
neighborhoods
stores in neighborhoods
• Sidewalks in existing development,
• Organize road construction
not just new development
planning so that if a main
• Programs for homeless residents
north/south roadway is under
like jobs, including helping clean
construction, you wait on further
up neighborhoods
north/south projects
• Third spaces
AGENDA
[Page 74]
Increase pedestrian safety at
uncontrolled intersections on large
roads, especially one way roads
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Lack of low friction transit
Lack of public spaces free from oppression
Please always consider small business impact when considering taxes
Greater options in affordable housing (location, size, etc.)
Density transition, no high-rise next to single unit homes
Building getting torn down for parking lots or mall centers
Mixed use housing can balance both
Vacant lots/parking lots sitting unused
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Residential Low:
o Consider impacts of less on-site parking
o Allow small mixed uses (cafes, etc.) and embrace being an urban area
o Allow mixed-use spaces, community spaces, community gardens, parks, and
walkable third spaces.
o No gas stations
o Allow for small scale medical uses (e.g. dentist) near hospital district
o Need transition between low- and high-density areas
Residential High:
o Needs to be expanded into existing lower scale residential, such as near
transit or in close proximity to amenities
Commercial:
o Mixed use needs to be expanded
o Take advantage of vacant commercial areas to add businesses or apartments
Centers and Corridors:
AGENDA
[Page 75]
o No hostile architecture
o Locate throughout Division once NSC is complete and traffic reduces
Downtown:
o Allow taller buildings and bigger business spaces
Industrial:
o Encourage adaptive reuse of existing spaces
Open Space:
o Undeveloped parks with trails, not every park needs big grass fields
o Accessible open space
o Mountain biking
o 100% of the river should be public park
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 5 votes, and Alternative 3 received 1 vote.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Development is currently
happening below bluff, create
transitional uses to reinvent the
area.
Alternative 2 plus downtown
revitalization preferred.
Allow Browne’s Additional uses
through the city/neighborhoods.
Alternative 2 improves already
existing sprawl in city limits,
Alternative 3 avoids sprawl.
Neighborhood hubs needed
throughout, create economic areas
in neighborhoods.
Alternative 2 has housing more
accessible to all parts of the city
and spread impacts.
Plan around future light rail.
Balanced alternative allows for
areas to grow and revitalize more.
Do not focus on downtown, people
do not visit as often as other parts
of the city.
To change behavior, give a better
alternative; carrot needed first.
Pedestrian only streets or golf
cart/scooter only streets needed.
Need easier access to bus routes
like Division.
AGENDA
[Page 76]
Downtown focus creates
opportunity for more housing and
revitalization/reuse of existing
buildings.
Alternative 2 preferred, but with
preservation of historic buildings,
revitalize or reuse buildings.
The investment downtown of
Alternative 3 is a good priority to
avoid businesses leaving.
Like the mixed uses in north
Spokane but want downtown
focus as well.
Housing does not fix homeless
problems, need other solutions
like centralized facilities.
Take advantage of areas already
changing – vacant areas, industries
that moved.
Downtown expansion plus the
connectedness along the streets
and transit lines.
Reuse abandoned commercial
buildings for housing.
Increase middle housing
everywhere.
Job growth is important; make
sure we are encouraging
industries and not just mixed-uses.
Like a multi-block approach to
intensities (like Alt 3 downtown)
over less depth along transit lines.
Downtown as a primary working
hub allows for investments to
make it a safe and appealing
destination.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD along Hamilton, North Monroe,
and along the northernmost portion of Nevada Street; MU-1 between Northwest and
Balboa/South Indian Trail neighborhoods, on North Monroe, and near the Shadle Library on
Wellesley; MU-2 along Indian Trail Road; and MU-3 in the southwest corner of
Manito/Cannon Hill, within Audubon/Downriver, and in Northwest.
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting more street trees along Ruby
and Division, Browne’s Addition, and near Illinois Avenue; wider sidewalks on Division in
downtown; lighting on Grand and south of Wellesley; bus shelters along Division; increase
bus times near Government Way; better connected areas in Northwest and
Audubon/Downriver as well as just south of downtown; improved intersection at near Freya
and 5th Avenue; wayfinding near Maple/Walnut; and reduced speeds new Wellesley and
Driscoll Boulevard.
AGENDA
[Page 77]
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
There is no access from housing to river between TJ Meenach and Seven Mile.
Close some intersections along Driscoll at A and C streets, they are dangerous and
confusing.
Increased (bus?) access and frequency to airport.
Better “barriers” needed for separated bike lanes.
Browne’s Addition/Downtown need pedestrian and bike connection improvements
at Maple and 1st/Pacific/Riverside.
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Provide good resilient tree typers
that don’t cause damage to pipes.
Help connect homeowners with
getting weatherization like
insulation (both knowledge and
resources).
Discourage the purchasing of big
gas guzzling trucks, SUVs, etc.
Support the replacement of trees
when they need replanted
Make our neighborhoods more
beautiful and bring community
pride
Tree maintenance subsidies
Fire hazard mitigation for
homeowners
Ensure trees are watered, when
people quit watering their yards in
the summer, they also don’t water
the trees
Developers need to plant higher
age and mature trees
Equal investment opportunities
into neighborhoods
Work with local areas, including
Idaho, to maintain/preserve
climate
Use more fire safe housing
material in new developments
Targeted partnerships to get
better air filters for the community
More signage about issues like
heat islands, where/when they are
happening
Take a position as a city to go
solar, provide information to
connect to contractors or best
products
More coverage of trees throughout
Spokane
Need formal river access for noncar residents between TJ Meenach
and 7-Mile
More trail and native preservation
little parks
Look at housing ages to determine
places to target aging tree
replacement
Quit encourage people to remove
yards, instead of drought tolerant,
most people are landscaping with
rock and amplifying the problem.
Do more that just Avista providing
energy efficiency
AGENDA
[Page 78]
Urban re-forestation tree planting
subsidies
Raise subsidy help by a sliding
scale
Window upgrade help to reduce
energy cost
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
No additional power to AI facilities,
it will create more pollution
More bus only lanes to make
public transit faster, cheaper, and
quicker
SpokaneScape: incentive model is
helpful, but businesses are exempt
More improvements to bike
infrastructure and consistent
connectivity throughout
neighborhoods
Tree and native landscaping
Better park and transit accessibility
for walkable neighborhoods
Tree canopy
Promotion of local community
solution for addressing climate
Address financial barriers
Low/zero friction public transit
Shade
Intersection of natural and built
environment
Mental and physical health
Low-cost improvements to support
biking
Education around benefits of tree
canopy
Incentivize tree planting on the
north side of the city
Hold businesses more accountable
Trees as physical barriers for bike
lanes to improve safety
Greenhouse gas emissions related
to “dead internet”
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Support bicycle use and protected
bike lanes
Fruit and nut trees in public
spaces, not ornamental fruit trees
Protected bike lanes and bus only
lanes
Supporting walkable
neighborhoods for community
development
Fund solar panel
Heat mitigation in neighborhoods,
especially East Central
AGENDA
[Page 79]
City should provide funding
opportunities for climate change
mitigation activities
Supporting pedestrian
transportation
Leaf removal should happen in
West Central, equal access to
resource
More advertising for Spokanopy
and SpokaneScape
Safer roads
Support equity in neighborhoods
impacted by freeways through
noise barriers, reinvestment
without gentrifying
More bus rapid transit throughout
the city
Stop watering public spaces that
aren’t parks
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 8
votes, Equity received 5 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 7 votes, Logistics
received 5 votes, and Risk received 1 vote.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Legislative control to create solutions
How to reduce homelessness/outdoor sleeping to make people less vulnerable
Build equity into each criterion
AGENDA
[Page 80]
Memo
Re:
Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 19,
2025 at the Central Library. Approximately 35 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Art districts
Neighborhoods being distinct
Overnight daycares
Spark House
Address land speculation
Shopping District (Monroe,
Garland)
Indoor swimming pools for the
winter
Trails
Action plan for incentivizing
affordable, dense housing
Daycare centers
Conservation/migration corridors
to connect to County corridors
Promoting outdoor activities in the
winter e.g. park use in the winter,
SCC pool
Addressing employment and job
creation
Ensuring adequate levels of
transportation/transit
opportunities to reduce single
occupancy vehicles
Aim to make all playgrounds and
parks accessible
Natural playgrounds
Shoreline master planning
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
AGENDA
[Page 81]
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Faster permit processing
City should be involved in public housing development
High housing costs are a concern
Mobile home park developments being replaced by affordable multi-family housing
Business displacement due to neighborhood perception of safety
Lack of housing inventory to keep up with population increases
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Urban Agriculture:
o Allow flower growers, small vegetable and fruit farmers market-type food
production
o Locate to avoid impacts of potential pesticides
Residential Low:
o Human-scale and human serving design
o Allow parking
o Allow community gardens and indoor community pools
Residential High:
o Accessible housing (no stairs)
Centers and Corridors:
o Allow multi-family as well as trade/live work makerspaces
o Do not allow drive throughs
Institutional:
o Incentives apartments
o Community pools
Open Space:
o Allow indoor community pools
o Provide enough parks/trails so those in dense areas/apartments have a
place to go outside
AGENDA
[Page 82]
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 9 votes, and Alternative 3 received 3 votes.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
North/South and East/West
connection in Alternative 2 is a
positive
Diversity of locations is positive for
clients/investors; “diversity of
options”
Use land along Government
Way/West Hills
Alt 2 creates bridge between
neighborhoods
Protect agricultural lands;
encourage regenerative
agricultural practices
Like NW mixed use proposal
East/West supported in Alt 2 along
Wellesley and Francis
Alt 3 plus Wellesley, E/W
connection
Like mixed use along NW
Boulevard in Alt 2
Alter 2 favors more positive
distribution but also add corner
stores
Neither alternative focus on
connecting smaller areas
Encourage arts through home
occupation
Alternative 2 needs the medical
focus and should include better
transit for shift work for medical
staff
Watch out for community
displacement in West
Center/Broadway
Push heavy industrial outside of
city limits
Health impact to neighborhoods
should be analyzed
Add home occupation for mix of
jobs/uses
Need traffic calming at Broadway
in West Central
Ensure professional buildings are
also part of mixed-use areas, not
just retail/food
For industrial areas where
residential areas can be allowed,
expand the tree canopy
Need to address transportation
More mixed-use and corner stores
with pedestrian emphasis
Need code enforcement for
parking in Cannon
Maintain Center and Corridors
AGENDA
[Page 83]
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD near the Shadle Library on
Wellesley, along Market Street in Hillyard, on North Monroe, along Mission, in parts of
downtown and Cliff-Cannon, and in areas on 29th; MU-1in north Five Mile Prairie, in parts of
Audubon/Downriver and West Central, and downtown; MU-2 in Shiloh Hills, Northwest, and
North Hill and in areas along 29th; and MU-3 in multiple areas spread out through Comstock,
Latah/Hangman, Lincoln Height, East Central, Cliff-Cannon, Manito/Cannon Hill, Chief Garry,
Audubon/Downriver, Bemiss, and Whitman.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
No more drive throughs
Need parks and trails in Hillyard
Design for less disruption in displacement
Cannon’s Addition concern over privacy with height differences
Cannon’s Addition needs transportation management
More health and transportation access in West Central
Trades academy
24-hour day care
Designated business district/center/corridor down east Broadway of West Central
Trade and maker spaces in West Central
“Sparkhouse” at McKinley School, various locations throughout City
Create protections against displacement in Chief Garry around City Line stopes,
including increasing resources for community
Increase Pedestrian/Bike Infrastructure along Northwest Boulevard
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting increase bus access in
downtown, along Grand Boulevard, out towards the airport, and near Northwest Boulevard;
bus shelters on Wellesley in West Central; downtown wayfinding, seating along Wellesley,
Northwest Boulevard, Division, Market, Grand Boulevard, and Regal; improved or new
crosswalks on Northwest Boulevard and near Monroe Street, as well as near Trent Avenue
and on Francis; intersections throughout northwest Spokane; street trees in East Center and
downtown; and greater and safer bike connectivity along Division, between Division and
Monroe, and on Grand.
AGENDA
[Page 84]
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
On Grand Boulevard from 9th to
29th, add center turn lane, remove
parking, and add bike lanes.
Increase separated protected bike
connectivity north/south away
from Centennial Trail
Double decker bus cut frequency
of the 6, not frequent enough
Slow down one-way couplets or
remove them
No in-town highways
Potential for strong transit
connectivity with Valley-BRT or
light rail on Sprague Avenue
Add pedestrian mall/mid lane
island to Main Street
Create school streets and shared
streets
Finish the envisioned boulevard
plan for Regal Steet through
Southgate District Center
On Washington, Howard, and Post
flip bike lane and parking
Push Monroe Road Diet down to
Kendall Yards
Recommended bus routes,
including to natural areas like Mt.
Spokane, Little Spokane River, and
Bowl and Pitcher
Slow default neighborhood speeds
to 20 MPH
Climate town videos like park(ing)
day
Grand should have a different type
of arterial status
Micromobility designated
spaces/use for daylighting off
sidewalk parking
Blue Moon Nursery will sell and
develop
Develop planned pedestrian
natural surface trail along Latah
Creek
Make a one hour bus loop down to
Latah through Cliff-Cannon
Pedestrian path buried in park
development
Trail easement at 11th Ave and
bridge
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Climate resilience education
End wood burning fireplaces
Real penalties for water use abuse
Park and ride/multimodal transportation system
Incentivize public transit use
Encourage water conservation and restrict water use in dry months
Extreme weather even shelters
Adon’t rely on air conditioners as they just displace heat, use good design
AGENDA
[Page 85]
Increase accessibility of recycling and composting
Stop logging forests to make room for development, planting street trees does not
replace natural forests
Address growth at the edge of the UGA
Stop over building lots and not leaving space for trees
Park and ride as entry way into public transit use
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Indoor spaces to escape to during weather extremes
Water conservation
More resources directed to conservation programs
Street trees, including maintenance
Food security
Allow fruit trees near street/sidewalks
City should partner with property owners to maintain trees to offset costs
Support creation of more efficient building construction
Restrict wood burning fireplaces to improve air quality
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
• Low-income renters and homeowners can’t easily afford maintenance of
sidewalks/trees/bioswales, but these improve their environment; city needs to
support neighborhoods by maintaining these elements
• Reduce light pollution
• Protecting elders from heat impacts through tree canopy and programs to reduce
costs for AC units
• Land bridge for wildlife crossing (Thorpe and 195); don’t just plan for humans
• Increase public indoor pools for year-round use for social and health benefits for
kids and elderly
• Amenities like parks and other public places need to be designed to allow
vulnerable populations to access during high temperatures
AGENDA
[Page 86]
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 6
votes, Equity received 7 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 3 votes, Logistics
received 1 vote, and Risk received 0 votes.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Emphasize natural environment as a component of resilience criteria
Page | 7
AGENDA
[Page 87]
Welcome!
The City of Spokane is working on a periodic update to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan as required by the State’s Growth
Management Act (GMA). This “periodic update” ensures the plan
aligns with any changes to state law. The last periodic update
was completed in 2017. Since then, the State has added new
requirements, especially around climate and housing. Due in
June 2026, the periodic update will identify policies and future
regulations to guide the next 20 years of our city.
What We’re Planning For
Population
Based on growth forecasts for Spokane County, the City of Spokane is
expected to gain at least 23,357 new residents between 2023 and
2046, bringing the City’s total population to just over 256,000.
23,357
projected new residents by 2046
Housing Needs
As part of the periodic update, the City of Spokane is seeking to better
understand how to support existing housing while addressing future
housing needs.
Per state requirements and County allocations, the City of Spokane
is expected to need 22,359 additional permanent housing units
between 2020 and 2046. 13,415 of those units are to accommodate new
residents, while the remaining units are intended to meet past housing
underproduction needs. In addition to a total number of housing units,
the City of Spokane is also required to plan for housing by affordability
22,359
additional permanent housing units
needed between 2020 and 2046
bracket.
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org
AGENDA
[Page 88]
Environmental Impact Statement
Background
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 process, the City
of Spokane is developing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), an informational document that
provides the City, public, Tribes, and agencies with
environmental information to be considered in the
decision-making process.
An EIS is required under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) for larger projects, such as significant
updates to Comprehensive Plans. An EIS describes
potential environmental impacts, reasonable
alternatives, and ways to avoid or minimize negative
impacts that could result from implementation of
policies, informing the Comprehensive Plan Periodic
Update.
Draft EIS
The Draft EIS presents three alternatives to test
different growth patterns and policies. The City of
Spokane will then create a “preferred alternative”
based on public input and the Draft EIS evaluation of
the range of the alternatives.
The preferred alternative may include any features
of the studied alternatives, including a combination
of various elements from all of the alternatives. The
Final EIS
After public feedback and the selection of a
preferred alternative, a Final Environmental Impact
Statement will be written that analyzes the chosen
path forward.
The Final EIS will also respond to comments received
on the Draft EIS.
preferred alternative will be evaluated in the Final EIS.
EIS Topics
Earth, water quality, and water
resources
Relationship to plans, policies,
and regulations
Air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions
Transportation, including
multiple modes and city and
state facilities
Plants and animals, including
critical areas and habitat
Public services: police, fire and
emergency medical services,
parks, schools, libraries, solid
waste
Land use patterns and urban
form, including historic and
cultural resources
Population, employment, and
housing
Utilities: power, water,
wastewater, and stormwater
The City is studying three alternatives in the Draft EIS.
Each alternative describes different growth strategies.
Alternative 2
Distributed and Balanced
Alternative 3
Center City and Regional Hubs
Moderate
Moderate-High
High
Growth Intensity
(Alternatives 2 and 3)
High Density
Housing
Moderate
Density Housing
Mixed Use /
Commercial
Employment/
Industrial Light
Employment/
Industrial Heavy
High Density Housing
Moderate Density Housing
Mixed Use / Commercial
Employment/
Industrial Light
Employment/
Industrial Heavy
AGENDA
[Page 90]
Alternatives Comparison (Preliminary)
This board shares preliminary environmental impact evaluation results on the natural
There will be a public comment opportunity to weigh in on the alternatives and the
and built environment. Each table has a table or “report card” with comparison symbols.
Draft EIS evaluation. That will help the City of Spokane create a Preferred Alternative
Impacts may be greater or lesser, or there can be potential beneficial impacts/mitigation
that mixes and matches alternative features and adds mitigation measures that can
measures. The results may change with the completion of the Draft EIS.
reduce impacts on the natural and built environment.
Report Card - Built Environment
Objectives
OBJECTIVES
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
x
ı+
ı+
Meet Periodic Update Requirements
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
/
/
/
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form
Land use and Urban Form compatibility: Changes
Accommodate Growth: Housing at All
in use type between adjacent areas and potential
Affordability Levels
ı
ı+
ı+
Accommodate Growth: Jobs
ı
ı
ı+
Clarify the Plan
x
ı+
ı+
Simplify the Plan and Codes
x
ı+
ı+
Protect Critical Areas
ı
ı+
ı+
Fast-Track Desired Growth
x
ı+
ı+
Alignment with Vision Statement
x
ı+
ı+
incompatibility.
Environmental Justice: Increased exposure of
overburdened populations to light or noise pollution,
environmental hazards, or urban heat island effects
Population, Employment, and Housing
Capacity for Housing and Population Targets
Housing Variety and Affordability
Implementation of Housing Action Plan
Growth in Housing Displacement Risk Areas /
Increased Housing Supply that Reduces Economic
Displacement Pressure
Job types and quantity and ability to advance City and
Ability to Meet Objectives
x Less
More
regional economic development strategies
ı+ Most
Commercial business economic displacement
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations
services, schools, parks, libraries, and solid waste
Earth, water quality, and water resources: Potential for
Schools – Spokane School District
increased pollution and potential for increased rainfall
runoff flows based on housing density distribution.
Schools – Mead School District
Plants and animals: Potential for habitat conversion, or loss
Environmental Justice – Growth in Areas with Health
of habitat connectivity
and Social Disparities and Greater Service Demand
Center City
Utilities
Northwest
Power, Water, Wastewater Demand
Northeast
Power, Water, Wastewater Infrastructure Upgrades
South
Stormwater Generation
West Plains
Strength of Mitigation Potential – Plan and Code
Strength of Mitigation – Plan and Code Updates.
Adverse Impacts
Less Impacts
Citywide demand for police, fire/emergency medical
-
Updates
-
Potential Beneficial Impacts/Mitigation
More Impacts
Most Impacts
- Neutral Impacts
Moderately Positive
Positive
Your Ideas
What features of the different growth options do you like best? What could be improved?
AGENDA
[Page 91]
Map Your Future Spokane Transportation!
What type of street improvements and
destinations do you want to see near transit
throughout Spokane?
Help us by using these stickers to indicate
your preferences for development types and
street upgrades near major transit stops.
What is Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD)?
Transit-Oriented Development, or TOD, concentrates a diversity of land
uses within easy walking, bicycling, and rolling distance of high-performance
transit lines. Key characteristics of TOD include active street frontages
with housing, shopping, employment opportunities near transit stations.
These characteristics enhance neighborhood access to resources and
transportation options, supporting local economic growth and resiliency.
AGENDA
[Page 92]
Map Your Future
Spokane!
Earlier community feedback indicated a desire for more
mixed-uses throughout Spokane.
Where should different sizes and scales of mixed-use
development be located throughout the City?
MU-TOD
MU-1
MU-2
0
MU-3
2
4 miles
MU-TOD
MU-1
MU-2
MU-3
Transit-Oriented
Maximum Flexibility
Small Neighborhood Scale
Residential Mixed-Use
• Targeted towards vicinity of major transit
stops (within 1/4 mile).
• Tallest heights (150’).
• Avoids vehicle-serving uses (no drivethrus, commercial parking lots, etc.).
• No mini-storage
• Greatest provisions for people walking,
bicycling, or rolling with assistive devices
to access transit.
• “Base” type for Centers and Corridors.
• Smaller scale and lower intensity than
MU-1 zone.
• Smallest scale and intensity, targeted towards
neighborhood serving uses.
• Taller heights (90’).
• High amount of land use flexibility, but no
self storage
• Allow industrial zones where uses are
currently industrial.
• Moderate heights (75’).
• Can be placed both inside Centers and in
residential neighborhoods (limits on driveway
spacing, street access)
• Maximum amount of land use flexibility.
• Greatest amount of accommodation for
people driving (drive-thrus permitted).
• Entirely residential buildings allowed.
• Moderate support for people driving, but
no drive-thrus on storefront streets
• Replaces some areas currently zoned
Neighborhood Retail.
• Heights similar to neighborhoods (40’).
• Large-scale retail/services allowed but only in
structures that also provide residential units.
• Focused on accommodating people walking,
bicycling, rolling with assistive devices, and
accessing transit.
AGENDA
[Page 93]
Displacement
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update, the
City of Spokane has completed analysis to understand
displacement risk as we grow. As directed by recent
state legislation (HB 1220), the City is working to
establish anti-displacement policies.
Common anti-displacement policies include
inclusionary zoning, tenant protections, public/private
partnerships, tax incentives, community land banks,
and development agreements.
Your Ideas
What causes to housing and
small business displacement are
you most concerned about? How
could the City address them?
There are three
primary types of
displacement:
• Physical displacement, which occurs when
a project — such as building demolition,
renovation, or infrastructure — creates such
adverse conditions that a resident can no
longer physically stay in their unit.
• Economic displacement, which occurs when
increasing housing costs create pressure,
forcing a household or business to move to a
less expensive location.
• Cultural displacement, which occurs
when changes render a neighborhood quite
different, as many cultural institutions leave,
creating a sense of isolation for long-term
residents.
(Source: MRSC)
Scan here
More information about the displacement
analysis, as well as racially disparate impacts,
can be found at the Housing Needs webpage
AGENDA
[Page 94]
What Can Be Built Where?
What is Land Use?
Provide feedback on proposed land
Land use is essentially what kinds of uses can be built where. It
guides which uses are compatible in different parts of the City while
use designations that will implement
the future growth of our city.
ensuring the whole City has the right mix of residential, commercial,
What uses should be allowed and
where?
use will allow mostly manufacturing or warehouses. Each land use
and industrial uses needed to support a thriving city and economy.
For example, an area designated for “mixed use” can have an office, a
restaurant, or living units on the same street, while an industrial land
allows different zoning categories within it. Zoning determines the
rules and regulations that apply for uses and development for each
property.
Land use type
What uses should
or should not be
allowed?
Where should the
land use be or not be
located?
Urban Agriculture
Low intensity residential with agricultural uses
Intended for small portions of the City already with agricultural
operations
Residential Low
Single-unit homes and middle housing
Small scale businesses and other public-serving uses allowed
Residential High
Middle housing and taller/wider buildings with more units
Larger commercial uses than Residential Low
Commercial
Non-residential uses for living, working, and shopping
Mixed-uses and multi-unit residential in some areas
Centers & Corridors
Core or “heart” of each Center or Corridor
Other designations will likely be mixed in and around the core area
Institutional
More intense residential and commercial uses to support colleges,
medical centers, and other institutions
Downtown
Taller buildings and higher density
Range of uses
Industrial
Range of industrial uses including light industrial like maker spaces
and rapid prototyping
Open Space
Active parks and open space protection in some areas
AGENDA
[Page 95]
Chapter Review
Non-Technical Chapters Available for Public Comment
While there are many studies and projects in progress that will inform Comprehensive Plan
updates through PlanSpokane 2046, a big part of any periodic update is a review and assessment
of the many existing goals and policies. To this end, the City is undertaking a review of the
current Comprehensive Plan, known as the Chapter Review process. Edits to the Community,
Environment, and How We Grow Chapters have been made based on legislative requirements,
direction from the Spokane Plan Commission, and community engagement.
All comments and recommendations on the non-technical chapters
can be sent to PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org.
We encourage the public to include the Chapter name and Goal/Policy number(s) as applicable.
Community
Chapters
NON-TECHNICAL CHAPTERS
+ Climate
Environment
Chapters
+ Climate
*
“How We Grow”
Chapters
+ Climate
Technical
Chapters
+ Climate
Climate will be addressed throughout the update.
*Per state regulations, Shorelines is not due to be updated until 2031.
Learn more at the Chapter Review webpage
AGENDA
[Page 96]
Guiding Policies
As part of the Chapter Review process, seven nontechnical chapters have been reviewed and updated
to meet state legislative requirements, recent
plans and studies, direction from the Spokane Plan
Commission, and ongoing community engagement.
These chapters are now out for public comment,
with additional changes to each chapter are likely
to occur as public feedback is collected, additional
analysis is conducted, and a preferred alternative is
selected for the final Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Report cards summarizing the current
edits to the non-technical chapters
indicate how many new, removed, or
changed policies are in each chapter.
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org.
Your Ideas
As the chapters of the draft
Comprehensive Plan continue
to evolve based on community
feedback, what topics do you want to
make sure are addressed?
AGENDA
[Page 97]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 98]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 99]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 100]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 101]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 102]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 103]
Accommodating Affordable Housing
in the City of Spokane, Washington
a requirement of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.70)
June, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 104]
AGENDA
[Page 105]
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................i
I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Report Preparation........................................................................................................................... 1
III. Defined Terms................................................................................................................................... 2
IV. Housing Affordability Brackets........................................................................................................ 2
V. The Housing Allocation Planning Tool............................................................................................ 4
• A Note On Housing Versus Population Growth........................................................... 5
• A Note On Housing Affordability Brackets and Grouping.......................................... 7
VI. Determining Affordability Bracket by Geographic Location....................................................... 7
Using Zoning to Inform Housing Affordability............................................................. 7
Sources for Housing Affordability for Rentals and Purchases.................................. 8
Rent/Purchase Price by Affordability Bracket.............................................................. 9
Determining Housing Tenure....................................................................................... 14
VII. Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket......................................................................................... 14
• Special Cases in the Land Capacity Analysis.............................................................. 16
VIII. Housing Unit Development Since 20200..................................................................................... 16
IX. RESULTS: Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket........................................................ 17
APPENDIX A: Housing Allocation Planning Tool Documentation...................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B: Assembled Affordability by SubArea from Public Market Data Sources.................. B-1
AGENDA
[Page 106]
Figures
Figure 1:
Final Results—City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability.................................. i
Figure 2:
Income Brackets in Spokane County........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3:
Utility Allowances by Unit Type and Number of Bedrooms, Spokane County..................... 4
Figure 4:
Rent/Mortgage Payment Limits in Spokane County................................................................. 4
City of Spokane Housing Growth Allocation (2020 to 2046).................................................... 5
Figure 7:
City of Spokane New Housing Need by Household Income (2020 to 2046)......................... 6
Figure 8:
Zoning Classified by Housing Type and Maximum Density..................................................... 8
Figure 9:
Process for Calculating Income from Median Home Price....................................................10
Figure 10: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Apartments.com)...........................................11
Figure 11: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Rentcafe.com)................................................11
Figure 12: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Zillow.com)........................................12
Figure 13: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Redfin.com).......................................12
Figure 14
Assumed Affordability by Location–Rentals and Purchases..................................................13
Figure 15
Percent of Rented Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)...........................................15
Figure 16
Percent of Owned Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)...........................................15
Figure 17
Example Affordability Calculation–LCA to Affordability Bracket...........................................16
Figure 18
Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability.................................17
AGENDA
[Page 107]
Executive Summary
The State of Washington has adopted new
legislation that requires communities like
Spokane to ensure they can accommodate
needed housing in various affordability brackets
when updating their Comprehensive Plans. As
the City of Spokane is undertaking the next mandated Periodic Update to its Comprehensive
Plan, the City must consider growth for the next
twenty years. Sufficient capacity must exist in the
City to accommodate housing development in
these brackets.
The City has analyzed its housing unit capacity already as part of the adopted Land Capacity
Analysis (LCA) for the City of Spokane. This report
expands upon the findings of the LCA in order to
differentiate the available land capacity by
affordability bracket.
Affordability in Spokane is established by a
percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI), set
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Currently, the City of Spokane exhibits a median three-person family income of
$90,720 per year, through which the City can determine the various affordability brackets as follows:
• 0-80% AMI = $0 and $72,600
• 80-120% AMI = $72,601 and $108,864
• 120+% AMI = more than $108,864
To determine where in the City units might
be affordable for these incomes, the analysis
used publicly available commercial price data
from Zillow.com, Redfin.com, Rentcafe.com, and
Apartments.com. Tenure information from the
American Communities Survey (ACS) was then
used to determine what proportion of units in a
given part of the city might be rented or owned.
By comparing the unit capacity in the LCA against
the affordability information from the webbased sources and the tenure (rent vs. own) data
from the ACS, the City has determined which
units of capacity in the LCA are expected to fall
within one of the three affordability brackets.
By applying the analysis outlined in this report, the City determined that even though there
currently exists sufficient land capacity for
33,000+ units, the City cannot likely accommodate the needed units in the most affordable category, 0-80% AMI. The specific number of units in
each category the City can accommodate is
shown in Figure 1 below.
Per the Washington Department of Commerce guidance on the subject, the City must
now contemplate certain amendments to development strategies, code requirements, and policy towards raising the number of 0-80%AMI
units the City can accommodate in the next
twenty years. What those amendments might be
will be a topic of the upcoming Environmental
Impact Statement and Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
Figure 1: Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability
0-80%AMI Units
80-120%AMI Units
120+%AMI Units
Need (Commerce HAPT, 2020-2046)
15,347
2,588
4,424
Units Completed (2020-2024)
1,328
507
978
Capacity for Additional Growth (2025-2046)
9,654
8,036
12,475
Comparison RESULT
-4,365
5,955
9,029
Source: New Units Needed = Department of Commerce Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT). Units Already Built: City of Spokane, Acella Data 2021 to 2024. Capacity for Additional
Growth = Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025.
Notes: RESULTS row represents the following calculation: (Units Already Built + Remaining Capacity) - New Units Needed. A negative number denotes a lack of sufficient capacity in that
affordability bracket to accommodate the need identified by the State.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page i
AGENDA
[Page 108]
I.
Introduction
In 2021 the Washington State Legislature passed new legislation seeking to
remedy the State’s ongoing housing crisis. Described as a bill “supporting emergency
shelters and housing through local planning and development regulations,” House Bill
1220 (HB1220) was passed on April 14, 2021. Among other changes, HB1220
expanded the requirement for Cities and Counties planning under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) to plan for and accommodate housing within their borders
when conducting major updates to their comprehensive plan.
Prior to HB1220, Cities and Counties were only required to quantify and
accommodate their total 20-year housing unit need. HB1220 expanded that
requirement, calling on jurisdictions to consider and plan for housing units broken
down by various affordability brackets, based on Area Median Income (AMI).
Accordingly, the Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) provided the
Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT) and various guidance documents to help
jurisdictions meet the new requirements.
The following analysis conforms largely to the guidance provided by Commerce,
primarily Commerce publications Establishing Housing Targets for your Community
(Book 1) and Guidance for Updating your Housing Element (Book 2). While HB1220
also included the requirement that the City consider racially disparate impacts and
displacement, those topics will be addressed in a separate study underway by the City
of Spokane and are not explored in detail here. Additionally, HB1220 requires that City
quantify their ability to accommodate emergency housing—a topic which will be
addressed in a separate report from this one.
II.
Report Preparation
The following report was prepared by the Planning & Economic Development
department at the City of Spokane, utilizing the following staff:
Project Manager & Chief Analyst: Kevin Freibott, Senior Planner
Planning Director: Spencer Gardner, AICP
Deputy Planning Director: Tirrell Black, AICP
Economic Development: Amanda Beck, Planner II
This report is a follow-up to the City’s Land Capacity Analysis (LCA), adopted earlier
in 2025. Readers are referred to that document for greater detail as to the available
lands within the City and the development potential therein.
Page 1 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 109]
III.
Defined Terms
Prior to discussing the housing allocation and the City’s capacity to accommodate
those units, it’s important to understand several key terms used by Commerce, the
HAPT, and mentioned in GMA and HB1220. Those terms are as follows:
Area Median Income (AMI): The HAPT describes housing affordability by AMI,
specifically as a percentage of the Spokane County AMI. AMI is established by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
is updated annually for the use of housing providers and local government.
HUD sets the AMI for the entire Spokane metropolitan area, not for cities
specifically. For financial year 2025, HUD states the AMI for the Spokane area
is $100,800. Commensurately, a household making $100,800 annually in
Spokane would be a 100%AMI household. Conversely, a household with an
annual income of $50,400 would be in the 50%AMI bracket.
Permanent Housing:
Permanent housing units provide permanent
residence, whether or not those units are provided along with supporting
services. A housing unit can be any type of unit, be it a standalone house,
apartment, condo, middle housing, or some other type of housing. For the
purposes of this analysis, group housing is not considered as part of the
permanent housing number, commensurate with HB1220 requirements.
Permanently Supportive Housing (PSH): PSH units are subsidized housing
units with no limit on the length of stay, prioritizing housing for people who
require comprehensive support services to retain tenancy. Generally, PSH is
paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person
living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health
condition who either was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk
of homelessness prior to moving into housing. Simplified, PSH provides both
housing and support to help prevent those in PSH from entering or returning
to homelessness. PSH is quantified in the HAPT by unit.
IV.
Housing Affordability Brackets
The analysis required by HB1220 and GMA calls for the City to quantify and
account for new housing in several affordability ranges, or brackets, based on AMI.
The brackets are based on AMI, set by HUD, and represent a range of household
incomes in the extremely-low-, very-low-, low-, and moderate-income ranges. Also
included are higher incomes greater than the AMI, such as 120% AMI, but legislation
has fewer requirements for planning for these housing types.
By calculating income as a percentage of AMI, the range of household incomes in
each bracket can be determined. This is complicated somewhat by the fact that AMI
changes by household size, rising as the number of people in the household rises.
While most agencies and jurisdictions rely on the 4-person number, Commerce allows
for jurisdictions to make adjustments according to local average household size.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 2 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 110]
The following table (Figure 2) provides the current AMI brackets, based on the
region’s median family income of $100,800. The table includes both the 3-person
income limits and the 4-person income limits. While 4-person family limits are most
often cited when discussing AMI, the current average household size in the City of
Spokane is closer to 3-persons1. Per Commerce Guidance, when this is true the
jurisdiction can consider home affordability by using the 3-person limit instead2.
Accordingly, the analysis in this report will do so.
Figure 2: Income Brackets in Spokane County (2025)
Affordability Bracket
Extremely Low Income
%AMI
0-30% AMI
3-Person Family
Income Range (Annual)
$0 - $27,250
4-Person Family
Income Range (Annual)
$0 - $30,240
Very Low-Income
30-50% AMI
$27,251 - $45,400
$30,241 - $50,400
Low Income
50-80% AMI
$45,401 - $72,600
$50,401 - $80,640
Moderate Income
80-100% AMI
$72,601 - $90,720
$80,641 - $100,800
High Income
100-120% AMI
$90,721 - $108,864
$100,801 - $120,960
Highest Income
120% + AMI
$108,865 and up
$120,961 and up
Source: 2025 Income Limits Documentation System, United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Retrieved online at www.huduser.gov.
Notes: Calculations of income range, maximum annual housing cost, and maximum monthly housing cost made by City staff from HUD income limits.
The Commerce guidance directs Jurisdictions towards assuming that a household
should expect 30 percent of its income to go towards housing costs. Incidentally, this
is the threshold for “cost burdened” households used by the State and most local
jurisdictions. Those households that pay more than 30 percent of their monthly
income towards housing costs are considered “cost burdened.”
In order to analyze the relationship between rents in the City of Spokane and the
income brackets offered by AMI, first the appropriate maximum monthly housing cost
for each bracket must be calculated. Converting annual income to determine what
comprises 30 percent of the monthly income requires a simple calculation:
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost = Annual Income / 12 * 0.30
However, an additional calculation must be made because housing cost, when
considered by Commerce and the state, includes monthly utility costs in addition to
rent or mortgage payments. The amount to subtract from housing cost for utilities is
informed on a county by county basis by local housing authorities. In the case of
Spokane County, the Spokane Housing Authority publishes worksheets for the
allowances for certain household utilities. Spokane Housing Authority’s most current
utility allowances are provided by housing type and the utilities involved (e.g. whether
they be gas or electric, forced air or furnace). By using the most common utility types
in Spokane, the following utility allowances can be assumed (see Figure 3).
Accordingly, the amounts in Figure 3 should be incorporated into the maximum
monthly housing cost calculation by subtracting them from the total. For the purposes
2.35 according to the US Census American Communities Survey, 2023 5-year Average.
See p. 35 of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element by the Department of Commerce, August,
2023.
1
2
Page 3 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 111]
Figure 3: Utility Allowances by Unit Type and Number of Bedrooms, Spokane County
Unit Type
0 Bedroom
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
High-Rise/Apartment
$206
$213
$227
$243
$259
$282
Middle Housing & Low Rise
$216
$224
$243
$263
$282
$300
Single-Unit, Duplex, Mobile Home
$232
$244
$263
$283
$304
$323
AVERAGE VALUE
$218
$227
$244
$263
$282
$302
Source: Spokane Housing Authority, February 2025.
Notes: Assumes electric heating, electric cooking, and electric water heating, indicated by the source as the most common condition. The average value is a calculated value of the average of
the values in the three unit types. It is not provided by Spokane Housing Authority.
of this analysis, and consistent with the overall assumption of 3 persons per unit, this
analysis will apply 2 bedroom average value of $244. This results in the following
calculation for maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment:
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost = Annual Income / 12 * 0.30 - $244
By applying this formula, the maximum monthly housing cost for each
affordability bracket result can be determined, as shown in Figure 4 below. Note that
the analysis in this report will utilize the three-person household data as discussed
previously.
Figure 4: Rent/Mortgage Payment Limits in Spokane County
Persons Per Household
AMI Bracket
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
30% AMI
$312
$378
$437
$559
$678
$797
50% AMI
$665
$782
$891
$1,016
$1,098
$1,181
80% AMI
$1,195
$1,387
$1,571
$1,772
$1,916
$2,058
100% AMI
$1,546
$1,789
$2,024
$2,276
$2,459
$2,642
120% AMI
$2,192
$2,477
$2,780
$3,003
$3,226
$3,448
Source: Calculated values based on method in text.
Notes: Assumes 30 percent of monthly income calculated from annual Area Median Income, minus utility allowances.
V.
The Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT)
Commerce has provided a complex set of tools for Counties and Jurisdictions to
utilize when determining their housing unit growth allocation through the planning
horizon. This tool, known as HAPT, provides the countywide housing allocation based
on the planning horizon and the County’s overall population growth, as well as
individualized jurisdiction housing growth based upon the share of the County’s
growth each jurisdiction expected to accommodate.
In the case of the Spokane County numbers, the County has adopted the middle
housing forecast from OFM. This forecast is the most statistically supported option
and provides for growth of 100,065 persons in the County by 2046. By using the
regionally adopted projections, the entire county’s allocation is provided (see Figure 5
below).
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 4 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 112]
Figure 5: Countywide Housing Growth Allocation–Cities Included
Permanent Housing Needs by Income Level in Housing Units (as % of Area Median Income)
TOTAL
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income, as set by the United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Current AMI is for FY2025.
Once countywide need is determined, HAPT divides up countywide growth by a
number of possible methods. Spokane County and the Cities within it have chosen to use
“Method C” in HAPT, as it provides for both a statistical division of the overall growth
shown in Figure 5, but also accounts for housing need outside cities but within the Urban
Growth Area (UGA). See Appendix A for more information on this method.
HAPT requires that Counties apportion housing need among the Cities as a
percentage of regional housing growth each jurisdiction expects to accommodate.
Ultimately, the region agreed on a method to convert projected population share into
housing share, which was then input into HAPT (see Appendix A). Regarding the City of
Spokane, while the city is expected to experience 23.34% of population growth, the City’s
housing need represents 29.74% of the countywide housing growth. This is
commensurate with recent development in Spokane that has exceeded 1,300 units
annually since the recovery from COVID. By inputting 29.74 percent of countywide
housing growth for the city into HAPT, the tool provides the following housing need in the
city shown in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: City of Spokane Housing Growth Allocation (2020 to 2046)
Permanent Housing Needs by Income Level (as % of Area Median Income)
TOTAL
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income, as set by the United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Current AMI is for FY2025.
As shown above, the City is expected to require 22,359 additional permanent housing
units between 2020 and 2046. While those units are spread among all the affordability
brackets, that spread is not equal bracket to bracket. Figure 7 on the following page
provides a graphical depiction of that need by bracket.
A Note On Housing Units Versus Population Growth
The city is expected to grow by 23,357 people between 2020 and 20463. Compared to
a housing need of 22,359 homes (Figure 6) the two projections would seem incongruous,
3
Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025.
Page 5 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 113]
Figure 7: City of Spokane New Housing Need by Household Income (2020-2046)
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: Income limits provided by United State Housing and Urban Development Department, FY2025 Income Limits Documentation System, retrieved online at
www.huduser.gov.
as if the HAPT was assuming that most new residents will live alone in their home. This is
not the case, however, as HAPT provides for more than the housing units needed to
accommodate new population growth.
Per the Commerce guidance on the HAPT, the allocation accounts for three areas of
housing need, as follows:
• New Growth. The housing units to accommodate new population growth in the
city between 2020 and 2046. The proportion of new housing in the HAPT
corresponding to this need is approximately 60 percent of the total.
• Underproduction. In its study of housing needs and production in Washington,
Commerce identified that, overall, the state had under-produced housing by a
significant degree. This was largely due to COVID and other economic factors
outside the control of Cities and Counties, but the need is there regardless. To
remedy this situation, 30 percent of the HAPT housing allocation is included to
address issues with overpriced housing and historic underproduction. As a result,
approximately 30 percent of the HAPT allocation addresses the housing needs of
people who are already residing in Spokane.
• Homelessness. A small percentage of the overall HAPT allocation, approximately
10 percent, is intended to address the need of those experiencing homelessness
or in danger of imminent homelessness. As with underproduction, much of this
need is for people already in Spokane, not new growth.
While the City of Spokane has been allocated 22,359 units between 2020 and 2046,
only about 13,415 of those units are to accommodate new residents. Regardless, HB1220
states that the City must have enough capacity to accommodate the entire allocation, thus
this analysis in this report concerns the full number of units allocated (see Figure 6).
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 6 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 114]
A Note on Housing Affordability Brackets and Grouping
While HAPT provides for housing need in seven brackets (see Figure 6), difficulties
arise in providing such a high level of differentiation in housing data. It is near impossible
to divide housing costs into so many brackets due to the limited number of zoning types
and the high number of variables involved. As such, most jurisdictions have decided to
group the affordability brackets into the following three groups:
• 0-80% AMI – The highest need bracket, requiring the most program/funding
support.
• 80%-120% AMI - The middle bracket, where some support is necessary, but some
market-rate development may occur as well. Some organizations label this group
as “workforce housing.”
• 120%+AMI – The highest cost group, often called “market rate” housing.
Commerce’s guidance assumes little to no support for these householders.
Not only are jurisdictions using these three groupings, but the example tables and
calculations in Commerce’s own guidance group affordability thus. Accordingly, the City of
Spokane analysis will use the same groups.
VI.
Determining Affordability Bracket by Geographic Location
As demonstrated above, the HAPT indicates the City must accommodate 22,359
additional housing units between 2020 and 2046. To determine what capacity exists in the
city to accommodate those units, Commerce provides specific guidelines in their
“Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element,” published August 2023. This guidance
directs jurisdictions to consider their zoning and which housing types might be assumed
in those zones. Additionally, the guidance from Commerce directs jurisdictions to use
multiple data sources to determine what affordability can be expected from various
housing types. The following analysis conforms substantially to the Commerce guidance.
Using Zoning to Inform Housing Affordability
The Commerce guidance indicates that jurisdictions should compare the housing
types allowed in individual zones to inform what level of affordability might be expected
in given areas. To this end, the City analyzed all zones in which housing is allowed and
compared the housing types and densities assumed for each, as shown in Figure 8 on the
following page.
The City of Spokane is somewhat unusual, in that the municipal code allows for the
development of residential uses in all zones except industrial zones. Additionally, most
housing types (single-unit and middle housing) are allowed everywhere. Save for the lower
density residential zones (RA, R1, and R2), multi-unit housing is allowed in every zone. This
makes it difficult to impossible to differentiate housing development in the city only by
considering zoning.
Page 7 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 115]
Figure 8: Zoning Classified by Housing Type and Maximum Density
Zone
RA
R1
R2
RMF
RHD
Maximum Density
Allowed
10 (approximate)
10 (approximate)
Assumed Density
Density Group
5-9 du/ac
Residential Low
29 du/ac
Residential High
20 (approximate)
30 (approximate)
No Limit
NR
CB
GC
O
Middle Housing & Multi-Unit
No Limit
Middle Housing & Multi-Unit
No Limit
OR
30.2 du/ac in 33%
of the Area
Non-Residential
CC#
CA1
DTC
DTG
DTU
44.4 du/ac in 33%
of the area
Downtown
DTS
Source: Spokane Municipal Code, SMC Title 17; Shaping Spokane, the Spokane Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 3); Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane
(2025).
Notes: Maximum density is approximate in residential zones due to the fact that lots under 2 acres are not restricted by density–rather the SMC uses height and
setbacks to control for density in these zones. Assumed Density and Density Group conform to the City’s Land Capacity Analysis, adopted March 10, 2025, via
resolution RES 2025-0015.
Further complicating matters, the City does not have sufficient data to correlate
housing type with housing affordability as suggested by the Department of Commerce.
This is not a failure by the City, rather the requirement to track such data did not exist
historically, so these values weren’t collected. To remedy this, the Commerce guidance
provides for the option for Cities to augment and adjust affordability assumptions using
publicly available market data.4
Sources for Housing Affordability for Rentals and Purchases
Cities, Spokane included, often do not track the affordability of a given housing unit
when permitting its construction. Accordingly, the City has limited internal sources that
might indicate at what level of affordability housing development is occurring. As a result,
the City must look outside it’s own data for this information.
Per the suggestion in the Commerce guidance, the City has utilized data from multiple
sources to determine housing affordability by type, including the following:
• Home Value (purchases) by neighborhood provided by Zillow.com. Zillow
provides a combination of self-reported and industry information on home
purchases, assembling that data into ‘neighborhoods’ that generally conform to
certain parts of the city.
See p. 32 of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element by the Department of Commerce, August,
2023.
4
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 8 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 116]
• Home Value (purchases) by neighborhood provided by Redfin.com. Redfin is
similar to Zillow, but follows a more industry-based approach for home value,
lessening the impact of individual self-reported home values skewing the results.
As with Zillow, Redfin data can be divided up roughly by neighborhood.
• Median Rents by neighborhood provided by Apartments.com. Like with Zillow
but in this case concerning rentals, Apartments.com is somewhat weighted by
self-reporting while also accounting for historic data related to past listings that
may not currently be open for rent.
• Median rents by neighborhood provided by Rentcafe.com. Similar to Redfin,
RentCafe’s data is backed up by industry information in addition to current active
listings. RentCafe also directly contacts management companies and real estate
professionals to augment their data with additional confirmation.
Rent/Purchase Price by Affordability Bracket
Before a comparison can be made between median house price and monthly housing
costs, the home price must be converted to an assumed mortgage payment. Following the
Commerce guidance, the City utilized the Fannie Mae mortgage calculator to determine
what the approximate monthly mortgage payment might be for home purchases in the
City. The Fannie Mae mortgage calculator5 requires the user to input various assumed
factors that affect the payment amount. The factors used for this analysis were the most
common factors reported by Realtor.com for home purchases in Spokane County,
namely:
• 5 percent down payment;
• 30-year fixed rate loan; and
• 6.8% interest.
Plugging those factors into the Fannie Mae mortgage calculator returned a monthly
payment for each neighborhood’s median home price. That monthly value was then
converted into the annual income necessary to maintain such a payment amount. For this,
the Commerce assumption that 30 percent of annual income as the maximum that should
go to home payments/rents was assumed. The calculation shown in Figure 9 on the
following page provided the income required for a given median home price.
The same base calculation was used to determine the income required for rentals,
using the median rents provided by Apartments.com or RentCafe. Since those sources
provide rents in a monthly form to begin with, the first step (using a mortgage calculator)
was not necessary. Income required for a given median rent was calculated by dividing by
0.3 and multiplying by 12 only.
Figure 9: Process for Calculating Income from Median Home Price
Source: City of Spokane, based on WA Department of Commerce, “Guidance for Updating your Housing Element” (August 2023).
Notes: Fannie Mae mortgage calculator assumed a 5 percent down payment, 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and 6.8% interest, as averages provided by Realtor.com
for Spokane County.
Utilizing the calculations above, an affordability bracket can be assumed for each part
of the City for both median home price (purchases) and median rent (rentals). As an
example calculation for rental units, the following sample calculation utilizes the RentCafe
reported average rent for the Cliff-Cannon neighborhood:
1. Average Rent = $1,521
2. Assuming 30% of Income for Rent (Rent / 0.3) = $5,070
3. Multiplied by 12 to convert from monthly to annual: $60,840
Because $60,840 falls within the 0-80%AMI bracket (see Figure 2), we can assume that
rental units in the Cliff-Cannon neighborhood generally fall within that bracket. By using
this same calculation for both sources of rental data (Apartments.com and RentCafe) the
affordability bracket for each area in the city can be determined, as shown in Figure 10
and Figure 11 on following pages.
As an example calculation for units for purchase, the following sample uses the Zillow.
com reported median home value in the Northwest Neighborhood:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Median Home Value = $346,592
Mortgage Payment (Fannie Mae) = $2,966
Assuming 30% of Income for Mortgage (Payment / 0.3) = $9,887 a month
Multiplied by 12 to convert from monthly to annual = $118,640
Because $118,640 falls within the 120+%AMI bracket (Figure 2), we can assume that
homes for purchase in the Northwest Neighborhood generally fall within that bracket. By
using this method for both sources for sales data (Zillow and Redfin) the affordability
bracket for each area can be determined, as shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Summary tables showing the calculations above for all four sources and all areas of
the city are included at the end of this report. See Appendix B for more details.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 10 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 118]
Figure 10: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Apartments.com)
Source: Apartments.com, data
from May 2025.
Notes: Areas used by the source do not
necessarily match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown. The source had no
data for blank areas.
Figure 11: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Rentcafe.com)
Source: Rentcafe.com, data
from May 2025.
Notes: Areas used by the source do not
necessarily match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown. The blank area
contains zero housing units, thus it is not
shown here.
Page 11 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 119]
Figure 12: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Zillow.com)
Source: Zillow.com, data from
May 2025.
Notes: The source had no data
for blank areas. Areas used by
the source do not necessarily
match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown.
Figure 13: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Redfin.com)
Source: Redfin.com, data from
May 2025.
Notes: The source had no data
for blank areas. Areas used by
the source do not necessarily
match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 12 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 120]
By comparing and combining the four maps above, general affordability assumptions
can be made for both rental and purchase homes by location in the City, as shown in
Figure 14. These assumptions were used by this analysis to assign assumed affordability
to either rental units or homes for purchase in each part of the City.
Figure 14: Assumed Affordability by Location–Rentals and Purchases
Source: City of Spokane, Synthesized from multiple sources.
As shown above, rented units in the City generally fall within the 0-80%AMI bracket,
though two smaller areas tend to be more expensive, falling within the 80-120%AMI
bracket. The picture for housing units for purchase is more complex, with a somewhat
even split between areas exhibiting 80-120%AMI units and areas in the 120+%AMI
Page 13 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 121]
bracket. By determining affordability by geography in this way, the analysis can be more
nuanced as to the expected affordability of new units in the City over the next twenty
years. Many jurisdictions can consider their affordability for the entire City, but the great
size of Spokane (nearly 70 square miles) points to the need for a more refines analysis
than simply one value for the entire city. The approach outlined above grants that higher
level of detail.
Determining Housing Tenure
Now that the areas of the City in which certain affordability brackets can be assumed
has been established, the only remaining step is to determine which new units might be
for rent and which might be for purchase. Of note, it is inaccurate to assume that all
detached homes are for purchase, as the rental house market in Spokane is rather robust.
To determine the split of rented and purchase units expected in the city, this analysis
utilized data from the American Communities Survey (ACS) 5-year average reports from
2023. ACS provides sample-based data to fill in between the decennial censuses, providing
a relatively reliable data source for tenure (owned versus rented).
By polling ACS data, the City determined the mix of owned and rented homes in each
Census Tract, resulting in the maps on the following pages (Figure 15 and Figure 16). By
utilizing the ratio of rented to owned homes in each tract, any capacity for new housing
development in those tracts can be split accordingly into assumed rental units and units
for purchase. For instance, assume a given Census Tract exhibits 60% owned and 40%
rented units. That same Tract, say, shows an expected affordability of 80-120%AMI for
rental units and 120%+AMI for purchased units (per Figure 14). If that tract has capacity
for 100 units, 40 of those units could be assumed to be rented in the 80-120%AMI bracket
and 60 units could be assumed to be sold in the 120+%AMI bracket. This is precisely the
calculation used to determine final capacity in this report.
V.
Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket
The Commerce guidance states that once a jurisdiction has determined the
affordability of various housing types, zones, and locations, then the unit capacity in those
areas should be incorporated into the analysis. As the City has completed its LCA6, that
analysis provides a theoretical unit capacity in various locations throughout the city. Per
Commerce’s guidance, the unit capacity from the LCA was used in this analysis.
Because the LCA provides for potential units of capacity by geographic location within
the city, each unit of capacity in the LCA can be compared to the tenure assumptions
shown in Figures 15 and 16, producing an assumed number of rented units and owned
units of capacity in each Census tract. For example, if the LCA found that 100 units of
capacity exist in a tract of 60 percent owned and 40 percent rented homes, this analysis
assumes that 60 units of capacity would be owned and 40 units of capacity would be
rented.
6
Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, adopted March 10, 2025, via resolution RES 2025-0015.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 14 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 122]
Figure 15: Percent of Rented Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)
Figure 16: Percent of Owned Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)
Source (Both): US Census Bureau, American Communities Survey, 2023 5-Year Average
Note (Both): Areas around the Spokane International Airport are blank due to a lack of any housing in this area.
Page 15 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 123]
Once the assumptions for tenure (owned versus rented) are applied to units of
capacity in the LCA, the affordability of those units can be inferred by comparing the
location to the affordability in Figure 14. A schematic example of this calculation is shown
below (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Example Affordability Calculation–LCA to Affordability Bracket
Special Cases in the Land Capacity Analysis
The LCA considers two special areas in its analysis, those of adopted Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) that have not yet completed platting all lots, and the South Logan
Transit Oriented Development (South Logan TOD) subarea analysis. Readers are referred
to the LCA itself for details on how these areas were handled in the LCA.
Following the process in the LCA, the analysis of affordability herein considers the
PUDs and South Logan TOD area separately as well. This is for the same reason—a greater
level of specificity is known about the development potential in these areas. Regarding the
PUDs, these typically involve either single-unit homes or multi-unit buildings as part of a
larger planned development with (generally) higher costs for residents, both rented or
purchased. Accordingly, for any units of capacity within PUDs the analysis in this report
assumes those units to occur at the more costly affordability bracket—namely 80-120%
AMI for rental units and 120+% AMI for purchased homes. Additionally, most PUDs include
covenants that restrict the renting of homes within PUDs. As a result, this analysis
assumes that 100 percent of single unit homes in PUDs will be for purchase. Likewise, all
multi-unit potential in PUDs is assumed to be for rent.
When considering the South Logan TOD area, the project area located in a part of the
City with the least affordable brackets in both rentals and purchase homes. Accordingly,
all units in the South Logan TOD area are assumed by this analysis to be in the 120+% AMI
bracket for purchase and the 80-120%AMI bracket for rentals.
VI.
Housing Unit Development Since 2020
The housing allocation provided by Commerce via the HAPT establishes need between
the years 2020 and 2046. Because development has continued since 2020 and the unity
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 16 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 124]
capacity presented by the LCA is for 2025, housing units built between 2020 and 2025
should be accounted for. In essence, any unit constructed between 2021 and now would
reduce the overall need identified by the HAPT.
To do this, all residential permits issued between January 1, 2021 and December 31,
2024 were pulled from the City’s permit database. All completed units–-those issued a
Certificate of Occupancy or indicating a successful final inspection–were geo-located and
compared to the affordability assumptions in Figure 14, resulting in a tabulated number
of completed units in each of the affordability brackets. These units were then subtracted
from the “new” units called for in HAPT. This number of completed units is included in the
final table of this report (see below).
VII.
RESULTS: Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket
Overall, the LCA found that the City has sufficient theoretical capacity to
accommodate slightly more than 30,000 dwelling units. By applying those units of capacity
to the assumptions and calculations described in the sections above, those units are
divided among the three affordability brackets as follows (see Figure 18):
According to this analysis, informed by and in compliance with the guidance of the
Figure 18: Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability
0-80%AMI Units
80-120%AMI Units
120+%AMI Units
Need (Commerce HAPT, 2020-2046)
15,347
2,588
4,424
Units Completed (2020-2024)
1,328
507
978
Capacity for Additional Growth (2025-2046)
9,654
8,036
12,475
Comparison RESULT
-4,365
5,955
9,029
Source: Need = Department of Commerce Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT). Completed Units: City of Spokane,
Acella Data 2021 to 2024. Capacity for Additional Growth = Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025,
classified per the analysis outlined in this report.
Notes: Completed units represent those building permits issued by the City between January 1, 2021 and December 31,
2024, showing that either a certificate of occupancy was issued or a final inspection has been completed.
Resulting unit capacity represents the result of the analysis and calculations described in this report.
Comparison represents the following calculation: (Completed Units + Unit Capacity) - Need = Comparison RESULT. A
negative number denotes a lack of sufficient capacity in that affordability bracket to accommodate the need identified
by HAPT.
Department of Commerce, the City of Spokane does not currently contain sufficient
capacity to accommodate needed growth in the 0-80%AMI bracket. Concurrently, the
City has excess capacity in both the 80-120% AMI bracket and the 120+% AMI bracket.
To comply with the requirements of House Bill 1220, the City must consider, as part of the
overall Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, actions sufficient to raise the capacity in the
0-80%AMI bracket by nearly 4,400 units. Those changes will likely be identified during the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan Update,
as well as during preparation of the Update itself. For more information on these changes
as they are developed, readers are encouraged to visit www.planspokane.org.
Appendix to Accommodating Affordable Housing in the City of Spokane, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 126]
Appendix A: Page A-1
AGENDA
[Page 127]
Appendix A: Page A-2
AGENDA
[Page 128]
Appendix A: Page A-3
AGENDA
[Page 129]
Appendix A: Page A-4
AGENDA
[Page 130]
Appendix A: Page A-5
AGENDA
[Page 131]
Appendix A: Page A-6
AGENDA
[Page 132]
Appendix A: Page A-7
AGENDA
[Page 133]
Recommendation for HAPT: Housing Share
PLANNING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Report and Recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Periodic Update under the Growth Management Act, 2026 to 2046
Written and Recommended by PTAC, January 2025
Appendix A: Page A-8
AGENDA
[Page 134]
Executive Summary
The Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) has identified a possible issue with previous runs of
the Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT), which all communities planning under the Growth Management
Act have been advised to use when allocating housing by affordability for the region. The intended input
for the tool—the data that is provided to the tool and then used to calculate each jurisdictions’ housing
allocation—is the share of housing growth each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate. Unfortunately,
due to unclear instructions, the previous HAPT outputs shared with the Steering Committee of Elected
Officials (SCEO) used the share of population growth instead.
Following a review of the data and the HAPT itself, the PTAC recommends that the region use housing
growth share as the input for the HAPT, specifically a housing growth share created by applying the same
assumptions built into the HAPT tool itself to convert the adopted population share to housing share.
Of note, this recommendation does not affect which method within HAPT is utilized. The existing SCEO
recommendation for the method known as “A Prime” is not affected by PTACs recommendation in this
memo.
The full output of the HAPT, assuming that housing share generated in the way recommended by PTAC is
used, is attached to the end of this memo.
Introduction
Following the SCEO vote to recommend Method “A Prime” when using the HAPT, the members of PTAC
identified that there had been some confusion as to which inputs should be provided to the HAPT when
calculating housing share. As a result, PTAC’s Housing Subcommittee met several times in the third and
fourth quarters of 2024 to consider how this might affect the housing allocation output from HAPT. In
essence, it appears to PTAC that the HAPT was intended to be provided with the share of housing growth
each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate, while previous use of the HAPT utilized the share of
population growth instead.
After discussing this at length, PTAC has developed a method for converting the currently adopted
Population Share 1 to housing growth share, which can then be input into HAPT. This memo outlines the
recommendation by PTAC for doing this, and provides the summary growth numbers for each jurisdiction
that results.
HAPT Method A Prime
At their meeting on September 25, 2024, the SCEO voted to recommend the use of the “A Prime” method
in the HAPT. Throughout this discussion and recommendation by PTAC, no change to this method is
anticipated or recommended. PTAC feels that SCEO’s original recommendation, adopted on September
24, 2024, does not require revision to accommodate PTAC’s recommendations herein.
1
Adopted by BOCC Resolution 24-0348 on June 18, 2024.
Page | 1
Appendix A: Page A-9
AGENDA
[Page 135]
Housing Share versus Population Share
When PTAC and SCEO previously saw the “A Prime” results, it was always using the share of population
growth assigned to each jurisdiction per the adopted allocation 2. However, after multiple conversations
within PTAC and with Commerce staff, it was apparent that the instructions in HAPT were unclear and
that the tool was instead asking for the share of housing growth.
The share of population growth and the share of housing growth are directly related to each other, but
due to certain factors they are rarely the same number for a given jurisdiction. For instance, household
size (people per household) in each jurisdiction is not the same nor does it stay static over time.
Household size is continually changing from year to year. Furthermore, some jurisdictions contain a larger
amount of group quarters housing (i.e. college dorms, prisons, treatment centers) and that rate changes
over time. Those living in group quarters do not require additional housing units, thus they must be
subtracted from the overall population growth share for each jurisdiction.
Because of these factors, it is important to develop a share of housing each jurisdiction for the entirety of
the planning horizon (through 2046), not just today. Jurisdictions differ from each other and some
attempt to differentiate their allocations accordingly should be made as well.
A Note on the Underproduction of Housing
An additional factor has been raised by public commenters and PTAC members that is worth discussing
here. That factor is the known historic underproduction of housing statewide. Commerce’s research has
made it clear that development in jurisdictions across the state have been lower than what is required to
house existing populations. As a result, many jurisdictions’ current housing stock is already too small to
accommodate the need of the existing population, not to mention the growth that is coming.
It is important to note that HAPT factors this underproduction into its results. Accordingly, the number
of housing units a jurisdiction may be allocated when using HAPT will appear high when compared to
population growth. This is specifically because HAPT attempts to also allocate sufficient housing to
accommodate the recent underproduction of housing as well as future growth. This condition is true
regardless of which input is used for HAPT.
Determining Housing Share
The Department of Commerce has not provided jurisdictions with a method for calculating housing
growth share. Likewise, GMA does not mandate that Cities and Counties use a particular method to
develop housing share. However, the PTAC subcommittee found that the HAPT itself provides one
possible method.
While PTAC spent considerable time exploring other ways to convert population growth to housing
growth, ultimately PTAC felt that because the resulting housing share would be input into HAPT, it was
most defensible to use the assumptions already built into HAPT to calculate housing share. That way, the
same set of assumptions would be applied to all parts of the tool and any unintentional bias or
modification of results would be minimized.
2
Adopted by BOCC Resolution 24-0348 on June 18, 2024.
Page | 2
Appendix A: Page A-10
AGENDA
[Page 136]
Essentially, the housing share for each jurisdiction would be calculated directly from the population share
already adopted by the BOCC. While it is more sophisticated than can be expressed simply here, the
method for calculating housing share from population share is generally 3 as follows:
[(Population Share – Group Quarters Population) / Household Size] + 6% to Account for Vacant Homes
For the purposes of the HAPT, the tool assumes that household size is shrinking over time and that each
jurisdiction will see the same share of group housing in the County as they are in 2020. The resulting
housing share for each jurisdiction and area is as shown in the following table. Again, when considering
the resulting housing share, the following should be kept in mind:
Population share and housing share are not the same thing, though they are related to one
another.
Housing share in the tool is somewhat elevated to account for historic underproduction of
housing.
Table 1: Population and Housing Share Compared
Jurisdiction
Spokane County (Whole)
All Unincorporated Areas
Unincorporated Rural
Unincorporated UGA
Incorporated County
Share:
Population
Growth
100.00%
35.21%
4.70%
30.51%
64.79%
As shown in the table, when comparing population share to housing share, some jurisdictions are
expected to accommodate a lower share of housing growth than population growth (e.g. Liberty Lake)
while others are shown to expect a higher share of housing than population (e.g. the City of Spokane).
Why this happens is complex and due to the fact that HAPT uses multiple factors from multiple sources
to determine these amounts.
Because the HAPT only has one input for each jurisdiction—share of housing growth—those jurisdictions
where the housing share is larger than population share can expect their housing number output from
HAPT to increase when compared to the sample outputs discussed by SCEO previously. Conversely,
The assumptions in HAPT are more sophisticated than this, accounting for changes over time and each jurisdiction’s
share of certain values. Replication of the numbers herein by using this simplified equation should not be considered
when evaluating this recommendation.
3
Page | 3
Appendix A: Page A-11
AGENDA
[Page 137]
jurisdictions with smaller housing share than population share can expect their HAPT output to decrease
over earlier results.
Comparing HAPT Results from Prior Versions and Now
As a handy comparison of how overall housing
allocations would change when housing share
is input into HAPT rather than population
share, the table at right lists the total housing
allocation using both inputs. Also shown is
whether the total housing units would increase
or decrease for each jurisdiction when using
housing share, as the tool intended.
While housing share is the intended input for
HAPT, using housing share would increase the
housing allocation to the rural areas (outside
the UGA). To a greater degree, the larger
jurisdictions would also be subject to a larger
allocation.
It’s important to note that while this represents
a large change for some jurisdictions, increased
allocations to those communities in the center
of the UGA (City of Spokane, Spokane Valley) is
consistent with the requirements of GMA,
wherein growth should be concentrated in the
UGA and limited on the edges.
Table 2: Comparison of HAPT Total Housing by Jurisdiction
Total New Units
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated Rural
Unincorporated UGA
Airway Heights
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane
Spokane Valley
Waverly
Using
Pop
Share
3,534
22,946
5,007
2,535
1,023
0
0
6,601
179
36
53
0
17,550
15,713
7
Change if
Using
Housing
Share
Higher
Lower
Lower
Lower
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
While the allocation for unincorporated rural areas would be more than 3/4 larger, that increase would
be spread throughout a very large area (all parts of the County outside the UGA), tempering the effects
of that growth somewhat. Furthermore, urban scale services to those additional homes would not be
required due to their location.
PTAC Recommendations: Housing Share and HAPT
Following multiple discussions on the differences between population share and housing share, PTAC
generally feels that housing share, created using the same assumptions already built into the HAPT, is the
most defensible and effective input for the HAPT. The following benefits of using housing share discussed
were as follows:
The assumptions used to generate housing share from population share are identical to those in
the HAPT now.
The HAPT model is sophisticated—an adjustment in one variable can have unintended
consequences.
The data used to generate housing share have already been considered and adopted by the BOCC.
Page | 4
Appendix A: Page A-12
AGENDA
[Page 138]
Final Results
If the share of housing growth indicated in Table 1 in input into the HAPT, and the method previously
described as Method A Prime in the SCEO recommendation is utilized, then the final housing allocation
shown in the attached spreadsheet is provided.
Page | 5
Appendix A: Page A-13
AGENDA
[Page 139]
Appendix A: Page A-14
AGENDA
[Page 140]
Appendix B:
Assembled Affordability by SubArea from
Public Market Data Sources
Appendix to Accommodating Affordable Housing in the City of Spokane, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 141]
Affordability Data by Subarea - Purchase Costs
Home Prices
from fanniemae mortgage calculator
Mortgage
Income
Source: Zillow
Subarea
Median Value Payment
Balboa-South Indian Trail
$424,754
$3,635
Bemiss
$280,200
Browne's Addition
$354,056
Chief Garry Park
Required
Bracket
$145,400
120+%AMI
$2,398
$95,920
80-100%AMI
$3,031
$121,240
120+%AMI
$268,467
$2,298
$91,920
80-100%AMI
Cliff-Cannon
$405,652
$3,473
$138,920
120+%AMI
Comstock
$448,209
$3,836
$153,440
120+%AMI
East Central
$307,951
$2,636
$105,440
80-100%AMI
Emerson-Garfield
$292,084
$2,500
$100,000
80-100%AMI
Five Mile-Prairie
$565,299
$4,839
$193,560
120+%AMI
Hillyard
$280,517
$2,401
$96,040
80-100%AMI
Latah Valley
$566,119
$4,846
$193,840
120+%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$391,469
$3,351
$134,040
120+%AMI
Logan
$303,672
$2,599
$103,960
80-100%AMI
Manito-Cannon Hill
$535,315
$4,582
$183,280
120+%AMI
Minnehaha
$314,370
$2,690
$107,600
80-100%AMI
Moran Prairie
$494,428
$4,232
$169,280
120+%AMI
Nevada-Lidgerwood
$299,131
$2,560
$102,400
80-100%AMI
North Hill
$310,829
$2,661
$106,440
80-100%AMI
North Indian Trail
$496,470
$4,249
$169,960
120+%AMI
Northwest
$346,592
$2,966
$118,640
120+%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$329,062
$2,817
$112,680
120+%AMI
Riverside
$400,099
$3,424
$136,960
120+%AMI
Rockwood
$619,562
$5,303
$212,120
120+%AMI
Thorpe-Westwood
$442,224
$3,785
$151,400
120+%AMI
West Central
$299,526
$2,563
$102,520
80-100%AMI
West Hills
$405,951
$3,475
$139,000
120+%AMI
Whitman
$280,856
$2,404
$96,160
80-100%AMI
Home Prices
from fanniemae mortgage calculator
Mortgage
Income
Source: Redfin
Subarea
Balboa-South Indian Trail
Median Value Payment
$382,450
$3,274
Required
$130,960
Bracket
120+%AMI
Bemiss
$295,750
$2,532
$101,280
80-100%AMI
Browne's Addition
$310,000
$2,654
$106,160
80-100%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$296,956
$2,542
$101,680
80-100%AMI
Cliff-Cannon
$430,000
$3,681
$147,240
120+%AMI
Comstock
$435,475
$3,728
$149,120
120+%AMI
East Central
$300,000
$2,568
$102,720
80-100%AMI
Emerson-Garfield
$302,500
$2,589
$103,560
80-100%AMI
Five Mile-Prairie
$565,530
$4,841
$193,640
120+%AMI
Grandview Thorpe
$463,000
$3,962
$158,480
120+%AMI
Hillyard
$285,000
$2,439
$97,560
80-100%AMI
Latah Valley
$574,950
$4,921
$196,840
120+%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$403,000
$3,449
$137,960
120+%AMI
Logan
$318,000
$2,722
$108,880
120+%AMI
Manito-Cannon Hill
$540,000
$4,622
$184,880
120+%AMI
Minnehaha
$330,000
$2,825
$113,000
120+%AMI
Moran Prairie
$634,656
$5,432
$217,280
120+%AMI
Nevada-Lidgerwood
$302,000
$2,585
$103,400
80-100%AMI
North Hill
$305,000
$2,611
$104,440
80-100%AMI
North Side
$335,000
$2,868
$114,720
120+%AMI
Northwest Spokane
$340,000
$2,910
$116,400
120+%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$310,000
$2,654
$106,160
80-100%AMI
Riverside
$460,000
$3,937
$157,480
120+%AMI
Rockwood
$635,000
$5,435
$217,400
120+%AMI
West Central
$280,500
$2,400
$96,000
80-100%AMI
West Hills
$415,000
$3,552
$142,080
120+%AMI
Whitman
$291,000
$2,491
$99,640
80-100%AMI
NOTE: The subareas above do not necessarily correspond to Spokane Neighborhood Council boundaries.
Appendix B: Page B-1
AGENDA
[Page 142]
Affordability Data by Subarea - Rental Costs
Rental Costs
Source: RentCafe
Subarea
Average Rent
Income
(May 2025)
Required
Bracket
Balboa - South Indian Trail
$1,330
$53,200
0-80%AMI
Bemiss
$1,442
$57,680
0-80%AMI
Browne's Addition
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$1,426
$57,040
0-80%AMI
Cliff - Cannon
$1,441
$57,640
0-80%AMI
Comstock
$1,373
$54,920
0-80%AMI
East Central Spokane
$1,345
$53,800
0-80%AMI
Emerson - Garfield
$1,521
$60,840
0-80%AMI
Five Mile Prairie
$1,328
$53,120
0-80%AMI
Grandview - Thorpe
$1,540
$61,600
0-80%AMI
Hillyard
$1,366
$54,640
0-80%AMI
Latah Valley
$1,467
$58,680
0-80%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$1,149
$45,960
0-80%AMI
Logan
$2,009
$80,360
80-120%AMI
Manito - Cannon Hill
$1,139
$45,560
0-80%AMI
Minnehaha
$1,366
$54,640
0-80%AMI
Moran Prairie
$1,329
$53,160
0-80%AMI
Nevada - Lidgerwood
$1,237
$49,480
0-80%AMI
North Hill
$1,072
$42,880
0-80%AMI
North Indian Trail
$1,759
$70,360
80-120%AMI
Northwest Spokane
$1,382
$55,280
0-80%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
Riverside
$1,466
$58,640
0-80%AMI
Rockwood
$1,139
$45,560
0-80%AMI
Southgate
$1,529
$61,160
0-80%AMI
West Central Spokane
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
West Hills
$1,425
$57,000
0-80%AMI
West Meadows
$1,277
$51,080
0-80%AMI
Whitman
$1,335
$53,400
0-80%AMI
Rental Costs
Source: Apartments.com
Subarea
Average Rent
Income
(May 2025)
Required
Bracket
Bemiss
$1,202
$48,080
0-80%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$1,555
$62,200
0-80%AMI
City Center
$1,460
$58,400
0-80%AMI
Cliff Cannon
$1,359
$54,360
0-80%AMI
Comstock
$1,330
$53,200
0-80%AMI
Dartford
$1,394
$55,760
0-80%AMI
Downtown
$1,410
$56,400
0-80%AMI
Emerson Garfield
$1,374
$54,960
0-80%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$1,127
$45,080
0-80%AMI
Logan
$1,360
$54,400
0-80%AMI
Moran Prairie
$1,380
$55,200
0-80%AMI
Nevada Lidgerwood
$1,202
$48,080
0-80%AMI
North Spokane
$1,311
$52,440
0-80%AMI
Palisades Park
$1,282
$51,280
0-80%AMI
Rockwood
$1,157
$46,280
0-80%AMI
South Spokane
$1,265
$50,600
0-80%AMI
Town and Country
$1,369
$54,760
0-80%AMI
U-District
$1,659
$66,360
80-120%AMI
West Central
$1,326
$53,040
0-80%AMI
West Spokane
$1,274
$50,960
0-80%AMI
NOTE: The subareas above do not necessarily correspond to Spokane Neighborhood Council boundaries.
Appendix B: Page B-2
AGENDA
[Page 143]
City of Spokane
Department of Planning & Economic Development
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 625-6500
compplan@spokanecity.org
AGENDA
[Page 144]
CRSB RECOMMENDATION No.: 2026- 001
CITY OF SPOKANE CLIMATE RESILIENCE & SUSTAINABILITY BOARD
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE POLICY
INTEGRATION DOCUMENT IN THE 2026 PERIODIC UPDATE
Resolution to the City of Spokane Plan Commission to include Climate Policy
Integration in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board (CRSB) spent 2025
evaluate and develop goals and policies to integrate
climate planning into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane has developed climate planning under HB 1181 to
enhance community resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prioritize
environmental justice to avoid worsening environmental health disparities, which has been
supported by a Washington Department of Commerce climate planning grant which is
funded from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, and;
WHEREAS the CRSB serves as the Climate Policy Advisory Team for the climate
planning element within the City of Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan and its members have
evaluated and reviewed the draft climate policy integration document; and
WHEREAS, the CRSB held a hearing on whether to recommend approval of the
Climate Policy Integration document to the City of Spokane Plan Commission on February
12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing the CRSB received comment from Kirsten
Angell and deliberated over including an additional recommendation for consideration by
the Plan Commission to amend NE 11.4 Forest Inventory Database as follows:
and wildlife habitat, evaluated for their ecological and climate resilience values,
using Best Available Science. A Natural Area and Habitat Connectivity Network
database in the city’s geographic Information System would disseminate the
information for decision makers and the public in a usable, interactive format.”
WHEREAS, the CRSB, by a vote of 12 Ayes 0 Nays recommends the following:
AGENDA
[Page 145]
NOW, THEREFORE --- it is hereby resolved by the Spokane Climate Resilience &
Sustainability Board to
1. Recommend to the City of Spokane Plan Commission inclusion of the
climate policies listed in the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft
Final Climate Policies” in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Further recommend to the City of Spokane Plan Commission consideration of
amended language of NE 11.4 Forest Inventory Database, as outlined above.
3. Authorize the Chair prepare and sign on the Board’s behalf a written decision
consistent with CRSB Rule 6.5 and attached as Attachment A.
ADOPTED by the Spokane Climate Resilience & Sustainability Board by a vote of 12
Ayes & 0 Nays on this 12th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
Brian G. Henning, CRSB Chair
Approved as to form:
_________________________________
City Attorney
AGENDA
[Page 146]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
CITY OF SPOKANE CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON CLIMATE POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANSPOKANE 2046
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE
A recommendation of the City of Spokane Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board to the
Spokane Plan Commission for integration of climate policies within the PlanSpokane 2046
periodic update consistent with state laws.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The City of Spokane (City) is required to amend and adopt a Comprehensive Plan that
complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) under RCW
36.70A.040.
B. The City is undertaking a periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan, which is the guiding
document for future growth and includes actions by the City, due at the end of 2026.
PlanSpokane 2046 will identify policies and future regulations to direct the next 20 years of
growth for the City.
C. In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed HB1181 which added a climate goal to the
GMA under RCW 36.70.70A and requires local comprehensive plans to have a climate
change and resiliency element that is designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse
gas emissions and enhance resiliency to and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change,
to include efforts to reduce localized greenhouse gas emissions and avoid creating or
worsening localized climate impacts to vulnerable populations and overburdened
communities.
D. The Washington State Department of Commerce (WA Commerce) published the Climate
Element Planning Guidance to help counties and cities planning under the state's GMA
develop the comprehensive plan climate element with goals and policies that align with the
requirements outlined in RCW 36.070.70A.
E. City Council adopted Resolution 2024-0038 to initiate climate planning consistent with the
requirements of HB 1181 under the comprehensive plan periodic update.
F. During the 2023-2025 state biennium, WA Commerce made available through the
Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA) approximately $30 million in statewide grants to
help counties and cities prepare for the impacts of climate change through 2029. The City was
allocated $700,000.
G. For the 2023-2025 biennium, City Council accepted $420,000 of the allocation (OPR 20240142) for Phase 1 of climate planning, which focused on early community engagement,
climate impacts analysis, policy gap analysis, and the development of a climate risk and
vulnerability assessment with a focus on equity and climate justice.
H. For the 2025-2027 biennium, City Council accepted the remainder $280,000 of the allocation
(OPR 2025-0500) for Phase 2 of climate planning, which focused on ongoing community
engagement, policy development and prioritization, environmental justice review, and
integration into the PlanSpokane 2046 periodic update.
1
AGENDA
[Page 147]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
I.
In 2024, the Spokane City Council created the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board
(CRSB) by Ordinance C36557 to provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor, City
Council, and community on the actions necessary to achieve the community’s sustainability
and climate goals consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Action Plan,
environmental stewardship policies of the City as adopted by the City Council, and within the
requirements and parameters set forth in state law.
J. The CRSB serves as the Climate Policy Advisory Team in alignment with Commerce’s
guidance to assess climate-related hazards and local emissions, consider public input, and
provide goal and policy recommendations.
K. Outreach and public communication began in 2024 and continued throughout 2025 and into
2026 with online and in-person methods, a project website, community surveys, in-person and
virtual workshops, in-person and virtual focus groups, email updates, and online information
sharing through story maps, blog posts, social media, and regular project updates. Key
engagement activities reached over 3,300 Spokane residents.
L. The Tribal Engagement Workgroup (TEW) was launched to ensure that Indigenous voices
and knowledge systems were included climate planning and to inform the City’s 2026
Comprehensive Plan.
M. The Climate Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed as an interdisciplinary
committee of City divisions and departments to gather input and feedback throughout the
process on priorities, related work, and ideas to inform and shape the climate policies.
N. The draft final climate policies were developed, amended, and refined by the CRSB, CTAC,
TEW, and community engagement between August 2025 and January 2026.
O. The CRSB and Spokane Plan Commission hosted two joint special meetings to discuss
climate planning and integration into the Comprehensive Plan in October 2025 and January
2026.
P. The Draft Final Climate Policy Memo (Memo) provided on February 12, 2026 includes
revisions to and documentation of the draft final policies discussed at the joint meeting on
January 28, 2026. The Memo provides the draft policies for consideration by the CRSB at the
scheduled hearing on February 12, 2026.
Q. The draft final climate policies outlined in the February 12, 2026 Memo and corresponding
policy list include 97 policies aligned with the 11 climate sectors outlined by the WA
Commerce: Agriculture & Food Systems; Built Environment & Energy; Cultural Resources &
Practices; Economic Development; Emergency Management; Health & Well-being;
Ecosystems; Transportation; Waste Management; Water Resources; Zoning.
R. On February 12, 2026, the CRSB held a public hearing on the Draft Final Climate Policies
Memo, including taking of verbal testimony, and closed the public record on that date.
S. Public comment, as well as agency and department comments, received prior to the February
12, 2026 CRSB public hearing were included for consideration. On February 12, 2026, the
CRSB conducted its deliberations on this Memo and voted 12-0 to recommend to the Spokane
Plan Commission the following:
2 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 148]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
1. Recommend to the Spokane Plan Commission inclusion of the final climate policies
listed in the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft Final Climate
Policies” in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan.
T. During deliberations by the CRSB, recommendations were further made by vote on the
following additional request.
1. Adopt the Draft Final Climate Policy List with an additional amendment to add point
three to the draft Resolution in the packet to further recommend to the Plan
Commission to modify or supplement NE 11.4 to include the considerations in the
public comment received from Spokane Urban Nature (SUN) as attached (attached
as page 3 in the minutes).
U. Except as otherwise indicated herein, the CRSB recommends the final climate policies to the
Plan Commission with above referenced amendment to NE 11.4.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based upon review of the Packet materials, staff analysis and CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies,
which is incorporated into these findings, conclusions and recommendation, agency and public
comments received, and public testimony provided, the CRSB makes the following conclusions
for Climate Policy Integration in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive
Plan.
1. The Draft Final Climate Policies, as contained in the CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies Memo
are consistent with state law requirements, are designed to enhance community resilience,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prioritize environmental justice to avoid worsening
environmental health disparities.
2. The CRSB, as the Climate Policy Advisory Team for the climate planning element within the
City of Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan, evaluated and reviewed the draft climate policies and
recommends to the Spokane Plan Commission integration of the Final Climate Policies in the
2026 Periodic update.
RECOMMENDATION:
The CRSB recommends the Spokane Plan Commission include the final climate policies listed in
the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies” in the 2026
periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan on a vote of 12-0.
The CRSB further recommends the Spokane Plan Commission consider the written comment
received from Kirsten Angell and attached to these findings and the hearing minutes. Specifically
the recommendation for consideration of amended language to NE 11.4 which calls for a “Forest
Inventory Database” in the Ecosystem section of the Climate Resilience Policy:
“Create and maintain an inventory of existing and potential natural lands and fish and
wildlife habitat, evaluated for their ecological and climate resilience values, using Best
Available Science. A Natural Area and Habitat Connectivity Network database in the city’s
geographic Information System would disseminate the information for decision makers
and the public in a usable, interactive format.”
3 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 149]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
These Findings and Conclusions are prepared and signed pursuant to CRSB Rule 6.5 and
approved by a vote of 12 to 0 by the CRSB on the 12thd day of February, 2026.
______________________________________________
Brian G. Henning, Chair
Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board
Date:
4 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 150]
AGENDA
[Page 151]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Policies that meet the
Climate GMA
requirements
Supportive policies
Unique ID
Policy
Sector
MCPA_0055
Establish and maintain publicly accessible community gardens on
Agriculture &
city property, as appropriate, in partnership with local organizations Food Systems
to support traditional Indigenous food gardens and culturally
specific growing practices as well as to increase access to local and
culturally diverse food for all residents.
MCPA_0054
Incentivize rooftop and ground-level gardens, community
Agriculture &
composting, and food forest projects within new and existing
Food Systems
development to strengthen local food security and access to nature,
prioritizing access for renters, residents without private yards, and
overburdened communities.
MCPA_0021
Support farmers’ or public markets, fruit and vegetable stands, food Agriculture &
production services, small-scale farms, and other avenues for local
Food Systems
food production and access such as with simpler permitting
processes or financial incentives, as a means of local food security
and diversity in business opportunities.
MCPA_0058
Support culturally relevant programs and partnerships that offer
Agriculture &
educational resources for healthy cooking, community gardening,
Food Systems
mental and physical health, and other skills related to community
health and resiliency.
MCPA_0019
Incentivize and enable uses that provide healthy, affordable, and
Agriculture &
locally produced food in parts of the city with limited food access,
Food Systems
including by amending land use and zoning designations, as well as
updating code requirements.
MCPA_0057
Identify and designate areas that are suited for ongoing agricultural
Agriculture &
production, while also permitting smaller-scale urban agricultural
Food Systems
uses such as community gardens, home gardens, and small livestock
throughout the city, recognizing urban agriculture as a community
and economic asset that supports food security, local resiliency, and
public health.
MCPA_0059
Partner with food banks, farmers’ markets, and other organizations Agriculture &
to provide resources, services, and information to improve food
Food Systems
access.
MCPA_0053
Encourage the use of alternative and emerging agricultural tools and Agriculture &
practices that support regional resiliency to climate change, such as
Food Systems
hydroponics and regenerative farming.
AGENDA
[Page 152]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0066
Policy
Sector
Partner with energy providers, other regional partners, and state
Buildings &
regulators to offer incentives or rebates for property owners who
Energy
make energy-efficient improvements, such as heating, ventilating, air
conditioning and refrigerating installations, operations, and
maintenance, on the condition that cost savings are shared with
tenants.
MCPA_0065
Implement and support building and energy codes and policies
Buildings &
amendments that reduce energy and fossil fuel use, and air quality
Energy
impacts for existing and new residential, commercial, industrial, and
other buildings in a manner that equitably considers energy
transition cost and benefits for overburdened communities.
MCPA_0069
Encourage the development of heat mitigating roofs and other
Buildings &
passive cooling site and building features by exploring code updates Energy
and incentives in Downtown and other high intensity areas of the
city to reduce energy use and improve resilience.
MCPA_0070
MCPA_0068
MCPA_0067
Expand renewable energy production and storage opportunities
Buildings &
through code updates and incentives.
Energy
Regularly monitor progress and update interim targets for the City’s
Buildings &
net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal as set in municipal code.
Energy
Preserve and expand renewable energy sources and reduce energy
Buildings &
use, air quality impacts, refrigerant emissions, and potable water
Energy
consumption in City buildings and operations.
MCPA_0062
Protect, enhance, and restore ecosystems in order to support Tribal Cultural
rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non-
Resources &
consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and
Practices
materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change.
MCPA_0061
Protect and enhance sacred areas and cultural sites within the
Cultural
growing urban setting through collaboration with local Tribes,
Resources &
historians, organizations, and residents to identify features to be
Practices
protected.
MCPA_0063
Protect significant historic and cultural sites prone to floods or other Cultural
hazards worsened by climate change.
Resources &
Practices
MCPA_0009
Provide a range of financial and regulatory incentives to encourage
Cultural
the reuse, renovation, and preservation of historic structures while
Resources &
disincentivizing demolition.
Practices
AGENDA
[Page 153]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0073
Policy
Sector
Collaborate with colleges, schools, technical programs, labor
Economic
organizations, and other agencies to encourage the development of Development
an environmentally focused jobs pipeline that benefits
overburdened communities and supports a circular economy.
MCPA_0075
Incentivize brownfield redevelopment projects that incorporate
Economic
resilient and sustainable features through City investments and
Development
technical assistance, particularly in overburdened communities.
MCPA_0076
Support the long-term usability of commercial buildings in
Economic
economically disadvantaged areas through targeted investments
Development
and incentives such as technical assistance, grants, or loans for
revitalization of facades and storefronts, security and accessibility
improvements, and other renovations.
MCPA_0074
Support, incentivize, and encourage purchasing from businesses that Economic
primarily employ local people, use local materials, and produce and
Development
sell their products and/or services locally to preserve existing
businesses and reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled and Greenhouse
Gases.
MCPA_0080
Collaborate with Tribal partners to leverage traditional ecological
Ecosystems
management strategies for natural areas.
MCPA_0156
Identify, purchase, preserve, restore, and maintain existing and
Ecosystems
potential links between wildlife habitats, seeking to form a network
of wildlife habitats while partnering with regional, community, and
state agencies and programs.
MCPA_0146
Establish and support programs, codes, and standards that support
Ecosystems
the long-term health and maintenance of the urban canopy on
public and private lands, including public awareness campaigns,
incentives, and funding opportunities, prioritizing areas with high
heat risk and overburdened communities.
MCPA_0083
Implement programs, codes, and standards that increase aquatic
Ecosystems
and upland habitat resilience by protecting water quality, increasing
water residence time in streams, implementing natural landscaping
to slow, filter, and store stormwater, conserving water, protecting
groundwater, and keeping waters cool.
MCPA_0149
Provide educational resources and volunteer opportunities for
Ecosystems
environmental stewardship on City-owned property, including with
clean-up events for trails, parks, and swales, and the planting of
street and park trees.
AGENDA
[Page 154]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
Policy
Sector
MCPA_0093
Develop resilience hubs — community-serving facilities that are
Emergency
designed to support residents, coordinate communication, distribute Management
resources, and reduce carbon pollution while enhancing quality of
life — throughout the city, prioritizing investments in areas with
vulnerable and overburdened communities.
MCPA_0095
Collaborate with Tribes and Native organizations to facilitate and
Emergency
identify places where Tribal members and Indigenous people can
Management
interact before, during, and after emergencies that serve as clean air
and cooling centers, charging stations, and evacuation centers.
MCPA_0086
Work with Tribes and Native organizations to identify evacuation
Emergency
routes and tailored emergency management strategies addressing
Management
wildfire, flooding, and other extreme events.
MCPA_0091
Develop a comprehensive, communitywide wildfire resilience
Emergency
strategy that improves emergency response capabilities, promotes a Management
fire-adapted community, and fosters short- and long-term wildfire
recovery, while building community awareness of the strategy.
MCPA_0092
Provide residents living in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas
Emergency
information about fire prevention and Firewise best practices while
Management
applying WUI best practices to new development through building
code, ventilation, and landscaping provisions.
MCPA_0148
Work with community-based organizations to identify, update, and
Emergency
maintain emergency evacuation routes, locations, and strategies,
Management
focusing on neighborhood and block-level plans tailored to the meet
the needs of the most vulnerable residents.
MCPA_0088
Engage with community members and organizations to provide
Emergency
resources that help residents plan and practice actions that make
Management
evacuation quicker and safer.
MCPA_0150
Ensure timely emergency notifications for wildfire, smoke, flooding,
Emergency
and other extreme events that provide both digital and non-digital
Management
outreach materials in multiple languages.
MCPA_0089
Ensure redundancy in emergency routes accessible by multiple
Emergency
transportation modes including vehicular, non-motorized routes,
Management
and transit services to reduce transportation barriers to effective
evacuation under different climate hazard scenarios.
AGENDA
[Page 155]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0101
Policy
Sector
Support Tribes and Native organizations in strengthening
Health & Well-
community connectedness and social and economic vitality to help
being
communities improve their economic prosperity and resilience to
climate impacts, such as by prioritizing funding for Native-led centers
that host multi-generational knowledge sharing, recreation, and
health and wellness services.
MCPA_0100
Foster stronger community connectedness and economic vitality
Health & Well-
that helps improve economic prosperity and community resilience to being
climate impacts, such as through equitable investments in libraries,
parks, recreation programs, urban green space and ventilation
corridors, multimodal connections and other such areas,
prioritizing overburdened and vulnerable communities.
MCPA_0096
Allocate resources to help all community members, including low-
Health & Well-
income residents, in remaining in their homes during extreme
being
climate events, including extreme heat and wildfire smoke, through
infrastructure and services such as the installation of cooling devices
or high-quality portable air cleaners, utility bill assistance, or
community and Tribal partner collaborations and educational
opportunities.
MCPA_0139
Equitably expand the City's programming and park maintenance and Health & Wellpreservation activities to increase amenities that address comfort
being
and protection from extreme weather such as shade and drinking
fountains and improve safety, education, and community resources
at parks, prioritizing investments in the most vulnerable parts of
Spokane.
MCPA_0103
Provide all residents with an equitable opportunity to learn about
Health & Well-
climate impacts, influence policy decisions, and take actions to
being
enhance community resilience to promote environmental justice and
support physical and mental health and well-being.
MCPA_0098
Develop and implement an urban heat resilience strategy that
Health & Well-
includes land use, urban design, urban greening, and waste heat
being
reduction actions that benefit overburdened communities.
MCPA_0102
Allocate resources at a consistent and meaningful level for programs Health & Welland events focused on Spokane’s youth (18 and under) and their
being
specific needs for social and emotional health, and cultural
belonging.
MCPA_0111
Apply resilience-focused development standards in high-risk zones,
Zoning &
including the wildland–urban interface (WUI) and flood-prone areas. Development
AGENDA
[Page 156]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0113
Policy
Sector
Protect, restore, acquire, and maintain urban agricultural lands,
Zoning &
urban forests, critical areas, shorelines, habitats, and open spaces as Development
interconnected natural systems that provide flood protection, heat
reduction, and carbon sequestration benefits, including through
codes, capital investments, and regional partnerships.
MCPA_0110
Incorporate climate hazard risk and environmental justice criteria
Zoning &
and mitigation into land use and infrastructure planning before
Development
major land use plan or policy changes, or when siting, replacing, or
relocating community assets, such as transportation, civic facilities,
and parks.
MCPA_0157
Reduce impervious surfaces in the city, in areas of drainage concern Zoning &
mapped by the City, to address urban heat island mitigation, and
Development
promote groundwater recharge and infiltration.
MCPA_0107
Foster transit-oriented development and accessible neighborhoods
Zoning &
by increasing intensity around multimodal transportation options in Development
order to reduce VMT and GHG emissions and promote community
resiliency.
MCPA_0106
Prioritize infill development, while expanding, protecting, and
Zoning &
maintaining the City’s tree canopy, through zoning regulations and
Development
permitting processes.
MCPA_0105
Plan for and accommodate diverse, affordable, and attainable
Zoning &
housing types to meet demand while avoiding sprawl in order to
Development
decrease emissions and infrastructure costs and preserve open
space.
MCPA_0147
Designate neighborhood- and regional-scale mixed-use areas on the Zoning &
Land Use Plan Map and provide a compatible mix of housing,
Development
commercial uses, and activities to focus growth, and support
complete, walkable places.
MCPA_0151
Apply parking maximums and consider using parking pricing to
Zoning &
discourage solo driving and encourage shifts to off-peak travel or
Development
other transportation modes.
MCPA_0152
Develop and administer parking policies that encourage shared
Zoning &
parking, reduce excess parking, and reflect the high value of curb
Development
and street right-of-way.
MCPA_0125
Promote natural tree cover, built shade, and cooling infrastructure
Transportation
along new and existing sidewalks, streets, transit stops, and public
spaces to enhance resilience to extreme heat, prioritizing urban heat
islands and locations where populations susceptible to health
impacts gather.
AGENDA
[Page 157]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0116
Policy
Sector
Prioritize public transit expansion, frequency, capacity, reliability, and Transportation
coordinated land use and transportation planning that improves
service especially for transit-dependent populations and lowerincome and overburdened neighborhoods.
MCPA_0140
Alter traffic patterns and enhance neighborhood streets to provide a Transportation
complete transportation network for all users in line with the
Complete Streets Ordinance, ensuring equitable distribution of
innovation, access, choice, and options, and freight and emergency
access throughout the four seasons for people walking, biking, and
rolling, transit riders, and people driving motor vehicles.
MCPA_0117
Develop zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and incentives
Transportation
including E-bikes, prioritizing workplaces, lower-income residents,
and renters.
MCPA_0123
Design and site new and expanded roads, rail infrastructure, and
Transportation
water-crossing structures to minimize environmental impacts,
protect public access, and incorporate climate-resilient features such
as fish-friendly passage.
MCPA_0124
Improve street connectivity and walkability, including sidewalks and Transportation
street crossings, to support everyday mobility and access to
potential evacuation routes.
MCPA_0141
Transportation
Enhance and maintain sidewalks, trails, and low traffic stress bicycle
facilities to prioritize the safety of the most vulnerable road users
traveling by foot, bicycle and other adaptive or assistive devices.
MCPA_0122
Install updated stormwater controls on roadways when capital
Transportation
improvements are implemented and where surrounding
development is less likely to contribute stormwater improvements.
MCPA_0118
Maintain bicycle and pedestrian connectivity during construction of
Transportation
development or projects that block the right of way.
MCPA_0119
Improve active transportation and other multimodal types of
Transportation
transportation options in concurrency programs – both in
assessment and mitigation.
MCPA_0126
Support federal, state, and regional actions, and implement City
Waste
actions that align with, direct, and model zero waste principles and
Management
state goals in partnership with the regional solid waste management
system.
AGENDA
[Page 158]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0072
Policy
Sector
Support a circular economy that increases demand for reused and
Waste
recycled materials, reduces demand for new raw materials and their Management
embodied carbon emissions, and fosters community education and
participation through regulations, incentives, and collaboration.
MCPA_0129
Encourage and expand home and commercial composting to
Waste
increase waste reduction and diversion, reduce the generation and
Management
disposal of organic waste, and increase soil health.
MCPA_0127
Collaborate with regional and community partners to provide
Waste
equitable outreach and engagement and clear and consistent
Management
messaging around waste reduction (including reuse and repair),
recycling, and composting among homes and businesses.
MCPA_0128
Strengthen and expand programs that enable and incentivize reuse
Waste
and recycling of construction, deconstruction, and demolition
Management
materials and waste and the incorporation of such materials into
building and construction designs.
MCPA_0138
Encourage and support residents and businesses to optimally
Water Resources
manage rainwater, water use, and stormwater on their properties
such as through modeling practices on public properties, adopting
codes and standards that enable and encourage rain gardens,
drought tolerant plants, or permeable pavements.
MCPA_0134
Strengthen and implement a water conservation strategy that leads Water Resources
to decreases in household, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
water use citywide, commensurate with the true available capacity of
the City’s water supply and effects of a changing climate, including
expanded incentives for drought-tolerant, native plantings and the
use of innovative incentive, communication, and education
programs.
MCPA_0136
Develop, implement, and regularly review a comprehensive drought Water Resources
resilience strategy that factors in projected climate impacts and sets
action levels for different drought stages in municipal code.
MCPA_0132
Manage water resources for all users sustainably through a “One
Water Resources
Water” concept that manages all forms of water, including through
retaining rainwater strategies, smart irrigation, stormwater
management, preventative maintenance, water conservation,
infiltration and groundwater recharge, plant selection, landscape
management, utility rate structures, and other methods that respect
water rights regulations while supporting a resilient and effective
urban water system.
AGENDA
[Page 159]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0135
Policy
Sector
Set and regularly monitor progress for short- and long-term targets
Water Resources
for water conservation goals set in municipal code.
MCPA_0133
Develop a program to allow municipal reclaimed water systems,
Water Resources
where feasible considering water rights, and allow onsite nonpotable water systems to reduce water demand in private-sector
commercial and residential buildings.
Preferred Alternative Growth Map Recommendation
Staff report prepared for the Spokane Plan Commission hearing, April 14, 2026
Planning Services, City of Spokane
[Page 1]
Preferred Alternative
Growth Map
Recommendation
STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR SPOKANE PLAN COMMISSION
HEARING, APRIL 14, 2026
PLANNING SERVICES, CITY OF SPOKANE
AGENDA
[Page 2]
Executive Summary
This staff report supports the City of Spokane’s 2026 Periodic Update to its Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046) and presents a draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map for consideration by the Plan
Commission.
The periodic update is required under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW
36.70A.130, and must be completed by December 31, 2026. The update ensures that the City’s
Comprehensive Plan remains consistent with state law, incorporates new legislative requirements, and
reflects the community’s vision for growth over the next 20 years.
A central component of this update is the selection of a preferred growth strategy for the City of Spokane
through 2046. Three alternatives were evaluated through a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
released for public comment in December 2025. Based on this analysis, along with public engagement
and Plan Commission input, staff have developed a Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A) that
blends key features of Alternatives 2 and 3.
The Preferred Alternative is designed to:
Accommodate projected population growth of at least 23,357 residents by 2046;
Provide sufficient housing capacity across all income levels, consistent with new state housing
requirements and the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070;
Support climate goals by encouraging more compact, transit-oriented development patterns;
Maintain employment capacity and existing industrial land uses; and
Utilize existing infrastructure and public investments efficiently.
The DEIS analysis indicates that the Preferred Alternative improves the outcomes listed above compared
to existing conditions, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, land
use efficiency, and housing affordability at all income bands.
The draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A), prepared for this Plan Commission Hearing,
represents an intermediate step in the Comprehensive Plan adoption process. It will guide the
development of a detailed Future Land Use Map and inform completion of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), both of which will be included in the final Comprehensive Plan update package.
More information about the draft Preferred Alternative can be found on the interactive PlanSpokane
StoryMap.
Action Requested
The Spokane Plan Commission is asked to review this staff report, consider public input both during public
engagement and the public comment period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and
recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution directing staff to proceed with the Preferred
Alternative as the basis for completing the Comprehensive Plan update.
Final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated in late 2026.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 3]
Background
The City of Spokane is undertaking a periodic update to its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). Periodic updates are mandated on a ten-year cycle to
ensure that local comprehensive plans remain consistent with state law, reflect legislative changes, and
respond to evolving community needs. The City of Spokane’s last comprehensive plan update was
completed in 2017.
Since that time, state law has introduced new planning requirements, particularly related to climate
change and housing. Recent legislation requires jurisdictions to plan for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and vehicle miles traveled, as well as to accommodate housing needs across a full range of
income levels. In response, the City must incorporate new policies, strategies, and implementation
measures into its Comprehensive Plan.
The Washington State Department of Commerce provides guidance for periodic updates through the
“Checklist for Fully Planning Cities,” which outlines required policy and regulatory changes. The City will
use this checklist to demonstrate compliance with updated state requirements as part of the adoption
process, anticipated in late 2026. Updates to development regulations will be addressed separately
through the City’s development code update, known as the “BUILDSpokane” initiative.
The 2026 periodic update will establish a policy framework to guide growth and development in Spokane
over the next 20 years. This includes revising existing plan elements, integrating new state-mandated
topics, and identifying a growth strategy to accommodate projected population and employment
increases.
Project Overview: PlanSpokane 2046
PlanSpokane 2046 is the City’s 2026 Periodic Update to its Comprehensive Plan and will establish a longrange policy framework to guide growth, development, and investment over the next 20 years. The
update ensures compliance with state law while advancing the community’s vision for a more resilient,
connected, and livable Spokane.
The project has two primary objectives: (1) to update and improve the existing Comprehensive Plan
document, and (2) to define a growth strategy that accommodates projected population and employment
needs through 2046.
Project Goals
The PlanSpokane 2046 update is guided by the following goals:
Meet State Legislative Requirements:
Ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and recent legislative updates,
including new requirements related to housing and climate planning.
Accommodate Growth:
Plan for projected population and employment growth by providing sufficient land capacity for
housing, jobs, and services across the city.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 4]
Promote Housing Affordability and Choice:
Support a range of housing types and densities to meet the needs of residents at all income
levels, consistent with updated state housing requirements.
Integrate Climate and Resiliency:
Incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower vehicle miles traveled and
improve the City’s resilience to climate impacts.
Improve Plan Usability:
Streamline the Comprehensive Plan by simplifying language, reducing redundancy, and making
the document more accessible and user-friendly.
Reflect Community Vision:
Incorporate input from public engagement efforts to ensure that the updated plan aligns with
community priorities and identifies gaps in existing policies.
Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations:
Updates to the City’s existing Critical Area Ordinances are being worked on as part of the
periodic update and are anticipated to be completed Q3/4 2026.
Growth Forecast and Allocation
Population
Through a regional effort, the City of Spokane has been allocated a projected population to plan for, with
an addition of 23,357 people by 2046. Spokane County is planning for a total increase of 100,065 people
by 2046 (inclusive of the city’s allocation). This reflects the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
Medium forecast. This forecast will be revisited for conformance during the 2031 5-year Implementation
Progress Report, mandated by RCW 36.70A.130(9). The OFM forecast for Growth Management Act (GMA)
population projections by counties will be revised in time for the next periodic update in 2036, with a
planning horizon of 2036-2056.
The population allocation (or, share given to cities), urbanized county areas, and rural areas were adopted
on June 18, 2024, by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Spokane County Resolution 2024-0348.
Housing
In previous periodic updates, including the 2017 periodic update, cities in the region used the population
allocation, or estimated population increase, to create their own housing units need forecast. In addition
to the previous requirements under GMA for cities to plan for population and employment increases, this
periodic update incorporates new methods of estimating housing needs by forecast population in each
income band, as required by HB 1220 (2021) and codified in RCW 36.70A.070. The Spokane County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a methodology to estimate housing needs by income band in
Spokane County Resolution 2025-0033, using the WA Commerce Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT).
Following this methodology, the city has prepared a full report Accommodating Affordable Housing, June
2025, a required document in preparation for the periodic update (Exhibit E). This work, along with the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, identified gaps in the City’s housing unit capacity by affordability,
especially in the 0-80% AMI category.
WA Commerce has extensive guidance on planning for housing on their webpage.
(https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growth-management/housing-planning/)
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 5]
Inherent in this discussion is the recognition that, in the lower income bands, WA Commerce guidance
indicates that affordable housing units are typically multifamily housing units (see below table on WA
Commerce Housing Typologies and their assumed affordability level). While important to accommodate
the recommended housing types for incomes below 80% AMI, this does not preclude the city from
allowing other types of units in all land use categories such as cottage housing or townhomes to meet
those housing needs while still providing a path to homeownership. However, current data indicates that
the most affordable units in Spokane are found in multi-unit housing.
The following table is from WA Commerce Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element Book 2 (January
2026). Further discussion mentioned in the table is available in the guidebook.
Figure 1. WA Department of Commerce graphic illustrating housing types by income levels.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 6]
Figure 2. Table illustrating housing mix and targets of the PlanSpokane 2046 growth alternatives.
Draft EIS Alternatives, Housing Mix and Targets
Housing Growth
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Stay the Course
Distributed and Balanced
Center City & Regional Hubs
21,739* new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing units than
present)
*This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022
Housing Mix
Housing Targets
63% of the City’s
total housing as
single unit housing
Meets total target
Does not meet 080% AMI
affordability
59% of the City’s total
housing as single unit
housing
Meets total housing target
and all affordability levels
Provides more capacity in
low-rise and mid-rise
Same as Alternative 2
Same as Alternative 2
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis of Alternative 1, Existing Conditions, showed a
deficit of zoned capacity to support housing at the lower income bands. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3,
as studied both provide enough increase in zoned capacity to support additional multifamily housing. The
draft Preferred Alternative Map (Exhibit A) supports enough increase in zoned capacity to support the City
of Spokane’s housing allocation.
Climate Integration
A new element, Climate Planning and Resilience, was required to be added for the 2026 periodic update.
The City of Spokane has chosen to integrate the climate element into existing chapters, rather than create
a new element/chapter. For brevity in this document, the climate planning work is documented in the
Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board Resolution 2026-001, Resolution recommending support of the
Climate Policy Integration Document in the 2026 Periodic Update (February 2026)(Exhibit F). Additional
and extensive Climate Planning work is available at PlanSpokane.org.
For consideration of the preferred alternative, it is recognized that climate planning element integration
has highlighted the benefits of compact urban development located near transit investments, particularly
when considering the new comprehensive plan goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
DEIS analysis of Alternatives 2 and 3 found that both have improvement in GHG and VMT goals over
Alternative 1, Existing Conditions. Alternative 2 has a “transit-oriented development” approach, with both
Alternative 2 and 3 leveraging compact development patterns to make use of existing utility capacity
which can result in reduction in water use, as less water is used for landscaping. The Preferred Alternative
map is a blend of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 7]
Scope of Work
The periodic update consists of two primary components:
Comprehensive Plan Chapter Updates (also known as Chapter Review):
Existing plan elements are being reviewed and updated to reflect current regulations, policy
direction, and best practices. This includes simplifying language, removing redundancies, and
integrating new state-required topics – such as climate planning – into relevant chapters.
Growth Strategy and Land Use Planning:
The City is evaluating alternative growth patterns to determine how future development should
be distributed. This includes selecting a Preferred Alternative Growth Map, which will guide
preparation of a detailed Future Land Use Map and inform the final Comprehensive Plan.
These components have undergone environmental review through the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) process and ongoing public engagement. Together, they will result in a Comprehensive Plan that
provides clear, actionable guidance for managing growth and development in Spokane through 2046.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter Updates
The first component of the process involves reviewing and revising the existing elements (chapters and
technical appendices) of the Comprehensive Plan. This work includes updating policies to reflect changes
in state law, incorporating new requirements related to housing and climate, and improving the overall
clarity and usability of the document.
Draft chapters are being developed and made available for public and Plan Commission review throughout
the process.
Growth Strategy and Land Use Planning
The second component focuses on updating the City’s long-term growth strategy to respond to changing
needs. The City developed and evaluated three growth alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), representing different approaches to accommodating future population and
employment growth. These alternatives were informed by technical analysis and refined through
feedback from the public and the Spokane Plan Commission.
Based on this evaluation, a Preferred Alternative Growth Map has been developed. This map provides a
policy-level framework for where and how growth should occur and serves as a foundation for the
development of a Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review (EIS Process)
An EIS provides analysis of potential impacts related to land use, housing, transportation, and
environmental factors, and helps inform selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 8]
The PlanSpokane 2046 growth alternatives and Preferred Alternative will be evaluated through a
programmatic EIS process in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This includes:
A SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) was issued on February 5, 2025.
The comment period for the DS (Scoping period) ran from February 5, 2025, to April 7, 2025.
A DEIS was prepared following the DS, and in conformance with the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution 2024-0348 and adopted Board of County Commissioners housing
allocation methodology, Resolution 2025-0033.
The DEIS was issued on December 18, 2025.
The comment period for the DEIS was December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026. Upon request,
an additional 15 days were provided, extending the comment period to March 5, 2026.
Comments received from agencies and individuals during the DEIS comment period are being
compiled and will be responded to in the Final EIS.
Final EIS is anticipated in Q3 2026.
The DEIS and associated documents, including an interactive StoryMap, may be viewed at
PlanSpokane.org.
Public Engagement
Public engagement is integrated throughout the periodic update planning process. Opportunities for input
include public workshops, comment periods associated with the EIS, and ongoing outreach to community
members and stakeholders. Feedback received through these efforts has informed both the evaluation of
alternatives and development of the Preferred Alternative.
Plan Commission Periodic Update Introduction – September 25, 2024
Plan Commission Workshop – December 11, 2024
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 9]
Plan Commission Workshop – January 8, 2025
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – February 6, 2025
Scoping Period Agency and Tribal Governments Meeting – February 19, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – February 26, 2025
Land Use Subcommittee, Community Assembly – February 27, 2025
District 1 Visioning Workshop – March 5, 2025
Community-Wide Visioning Workshop – March 12, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – March 12, 2025
District 2 Visioning Workshop – March 25, 2025
District 3 Visioning Workshop – March 27, 2025
Community Visioning Survey – March 31 to April 18, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – April 9, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – April 23, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – May 14, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – May 28, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – June 11, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – June 25, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – July 9, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – July 23, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – August 13, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – September 10, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – September 24, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – October 22, 2025
Land Use Subcommittee, Community Assembly – October 23, 2025
District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 5, 2025
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – November 6, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – November 12, 2025
District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 12, 2025
District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 18, 2025
Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Workshop – November 19, 2025
Plan Commission Workshop – December 10, 2025
DEIS Agency and Tribal Governments Meeting – January 6, 2026
PlanSpokane Virtual Lunch and Learn – January 13, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – January 14, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, City Hall – January 20, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – January 28, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Hillyard Library – February 3, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Liberty Park Library – February 5, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, Shadle Park Library – February 10, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – February 11, 2026
PlanSpokane Listening Hours, South Hill Library – February 12, 2026
Plan Commission Workshop – February 25, 2026
Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly – April 2, 2026
In addition to the listed Plan Commission workshops and public engagement opportunities, numerous
public workshops discussing the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update occurred with the Climate Resilience
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 10]
and Sustainability Board, Transportation Commission, and City Council. Numerous tabling pop-ups as
community events have occurred to spread community awareness about PlanSpokane 2046 and
presentations to various community groups and organizations have also occurred, upon request. Overall,
PlanSpokane 2046 has had over 4,400 direct individual touchpoints during engagement as of the end of
March 2026, including workshop attendees, survey participants, and pop-up event discussions.
In addition to direct engagement and presentations, the project has incorporated robust outreach to
provide community members information about the project and how to be involved.
Outreach efforts have included the monthly PlanSpokane newsletter with approximately 1,800
subscribers, the City webpage, Engage Spokane virtual platform, other City newsletters, social media, and
direct emails.
Draft Preferred Alternative Growth Map
The Preferred Alternative Growth Map (Exhibit A) represents the City’s recommended approach for
accommodating future growth as part of the 2026 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046). This alternative is informed by technical analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), public engagement, and guidance from the Spokane Plan Commission.
The Preferred Alternative is a hybrid of Alternatives 2 and 3, combining a transit-oriented development
pattern with targeted expansion of housing and mixed-use areas. This approach is intended to balance
growth, affordability, environmental performance, and infrastructure efficiency.
Key Characteristics
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD):
The draft Preferred Alternative emphasizes increased residential and mixed-use development
near existing and planned transit corridors. This pattern supports reductions in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while improving access to jobs and
services.
Housing Capacity and Affordability:
The growth map provides sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate projected population
growth and meet state requirements for housing across all income levels. Increased capacity is
focused in areas where multifamily and mixed-income housing types have access to transit and
services.
Targeted Growth:
Existing centers and corridors will be updated but will continue to provide a focus for mixed use
(commercial and residential) growth, with additional zoning capacity introduced in select
locations. This reinforces established development patterns while allowing for strategic
intensification. The draft Preferred Alternative does, however, recognize the benefit of limited
mixed-use development neighborhood-scale commercial outside of these designated areas to
provide greater access to services and daily needs for all community members.
Downtown and Core Areas:
The draft Preferred Alternative maintains current development allowances in downtown
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 11]
Spokane, including areas with no height limits. This supports continued high-intensity
development and reinforces downtown as a regional employment and activity center.
Limited Change in Some Areas:
Areas such as Latah Valley, Grandview, and Thorpe generally retain existing land use
designations, with only minor adjustments (e.g., along Inland Empire Way in the Vinegar Flats
area). This approach recognizes existing development patterns and planned growth already
underway. Additional areas not identified for growth priority or intensity increases in the
Preferred Alternative Growth Map are intended to maintain their current level of intensity and
allowances.
Integration of Ongoing and Recent Planning Efforts:
The Preferred Alternative incorporates recommendations from recent and ongoing subarea
planning efforts, including:
o Division Street TOD planning
o East Central (ReFive/5th Avenue) planning
o Centers and Corridors Update Study
o South Logan TOD Plan
o Hillyard Sub Area Plan
Efficient Use of Infrastructure:
By focusing growth in already-served areas, the Preferred Alternative leverages existing utility
systems and public investments, reducing the need for costly infrastructure expansion.
Rationale for Selection
The draft Preferred Alternative meets the City’s objectives for growth management, housing, and climate
integration. Compared to existing conditions, it demonstrates improved performance in areas evaluated
in the DEIS, including housing capacity, environmental outcomes, and land use efficiency.
This alternative also reflects community desire while aligning with state requirements for planning for
housing at all income levels and integrating climate considerations into land use planning. However, Plan
Commission may still propose amendments to this map at their hearing and City Council may also adjust
at their adoption of the Preferred Alternative by Resolution expected in May 2026. In general, any
amendments should avoid expanding beyond the growth that was analyzed in the DEIS to avoid additional
costs and time.
Next Steps
Adoption of the Preferred Alternative Growth Map will guide the preparation of a detailed Future Land
Use Map, including Land Use Designations in all parts of the City. It will also inform completion of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the remaining elements of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Ultimately, the FLUM will determine high level requirements for which zones are appropriate in certain
locations in the City. However, neither the Preferred Alternative nor the Comprehensive Plan Update
directly change zoning. Rather, they establish the policy framework that will be implemented through
subsequent updates to the City’s development code, including the BUILDSpokane initiative.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 12]
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Plan Commission find the Preferred Alternative Growth Map consistent with
the goals and requirements of the 2026 Periodic Update to the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan
(PlanSpokane 2046) and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Based on review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), applicable state requirements, and
public input received to date, staff find that the Preferred Alternative:
Provides Adequate Housing Capacity:
Accommodates projected population growth and meets state requirements to plan for housing
across all income levels, including increased capacity for multifamily housing.
Supports Employment and Economic Development:
Maintains existing industrial land designations and preserves sufficient land capacity for
employment uses.
Enhances Mixed-Use and Commercial Opportunities:
Expands and strengthens centers and corridors with additional opportunities for mixed-use and
neighborhood-serving commercial development throughout the city.
Advances Climate and Sustainability Goals:
Promotes compact, transit-oriented development patterns that contribute to reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Utilizes Existing Infrastructure Efficiently:
Focuses growth in areas with existing or planned infrastructure, supporting cost-effective
service delivery and minimizing the need for expansion.
Aligns with the Comprehensive Plan Update Process:
Reflects analysis conducted through the DEIS, incorporates community input, and is consistent
with guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce.
Plan Commission Action
The Plan Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the draft
Preferred Alternative Growth Map. This item will then move to the City Council legislative process. Staff
requests that the City Council adopt a resolution directing staff to proceed with the Preferred Alternative
Growth Map as the basis for completing the Comprehensive Plan update, including development of the
Future Land Use Map and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
This action represents a key milestone in the update process and will guide preparation of the final
Comprehensive Plan, anticipated for adoption in late 2026.
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 13]
Exhibits
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Preferred Alternative Draft Map dated 4/14/2026 for PC Hearing
DEIS Summary, with Alternatives Illustrated
DEIS Comments Summary
Public Participation Summaries
Accommodating Affordable Housing, June 2025
Climate Integration Report (CRSB Resolution 2026-001)
Plan Commission Hearing, April 14, 2026
AGENDA
[Page 14]
Exhibit A
Preferred Alternative Draft Map
Preferred Alternative Map
Potential Land Use Change Areas Map
Northwest Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
Northeast Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
South Spokane Preferred Alternative Map
AGENDA
[Page 15]
AGENDA
[Page 16]
AGENDA
[Page 17]
AGENDA
[Page 18]
AGENDA
[Page 19]
AGENDA
[Page 20]
Draft EIS Summary
Background
The City of Spokane is working on a periodic update to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as required by the State’s Growth Management Act
(GMA). The last periodic update was completed in 2017. Since then, the
State has added new requirements, especially around climate and
housing. Due in June 2026, the periodic update will identify policies and
future regulations to guide the next 20 years of our city.
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 process, the City is developing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an informational document that
provides the City, public, Tribes, and agencies with environmental
information to be considered in the decision-making process.
What We’re Planning For
The City of Spokane is expected to gain at least 23,357 new residents
between 2023 and 2046, bringing the City’s total population to just
over 256,000.
Projected new residents by 2046
Based on state requirements, the City is expected to need 22,359
additional housing units between 2020 and 2046. In addition to the
total number housing units, the City is also required to plan for
housing by affordability bracket.
Additional housing units needed
between 2020 and 2046
For more information, Visit PlanSpokane.org
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 21]
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Purpose and Process
An EIS is required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for larger projects such as a significant
update to the Comprehensive Plan. An EIS describes the potential environmental impacts,
reasonable alternatives, and ways to avoid or minimize negative impacts of policies.
The Draft EIS presents three alternatives to test different growth patterns and policies. The City will then
create a “preferred alternative” based on public input and the Draft EIS evaluation. The preferred
alternative may include any features of the studied alternatives. The preferred alternative will be
evaluated in the Final EIS and will inform the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
The EIS studies the following topics:
Earth, water quality, and
water resources
Relationship to plans, policies, and
regulations
Air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions
Transportation, including multiple
modes and city and state facilities
Plants and animals, including
critical areas and habitat
Public services: police, fire and
emergency medical services, parks,
schools, libraries, solid waste
Land use patterns and urban
form, including historic and
cultural resources
Utilities: power, water,
wastewater, and stormwater
Population, employment, and
housing
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
2
AGENDA
[Page 22]
Objectives
This EIS compares alternatives for their ability to meet these objectives:
Meet Periodic Update Requirements, including providing capacity for more housing types and
affordability levels, increasing resiliency to climate impacts, evaluating tree canopy coverage,
increasing opportunities for active transportation, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gas emissions, addressing needs of overburdened communities, increasing green infrastructure,
planning for jobs and economic development, and more.
Accommodate Growth through 2046 based on State projections and County allocations.
Clarify the Plan to remove policies that are inconsistent, outdated, duplicative, or unclear.
Simplify the Plan and Codes including future land use map categories and zoning districts and
reflect any new designations.
Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations to reflect best available science.
Fast-Track Desired Growth in priority locations through permit streamlining.
The City’s proposed draft vision statement for the periodic update is also considered an objective:
Spokane aims to foster a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive city by supporting economic growth,
environmental stewardship, and the diverse needs of the whole community. The City is dedicated to
ensuring access to attainable housing, safe streets, and thriving neighborhoods while inspiring
innovation, cultural vitality, and connection for all Spokane residents.
Proposed Alternatives
Alternative 1 “Stay the Course” would maintain the current comprehensive plan and code. It was
developed in prior years with different growth targets and different state expectations.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to meet current state requirements (including new housing, climate,
and other requirements), create the opportunity for housing at all income levels, accommodate jobs, and
update policies and codes to streamline them and facilitate growth.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
3
AGENDA
[Page 23]
Alternatives Summary
Alternative 1
Stay the Course
Alternative 2
Distributed &
Balanced
Alternative 3
Center City &
Regional Hubs
Same for all Housing /
alternatives population
growth
21,739 new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing
Varies by
alternative
Plan and
code
update
Maintains current
Updates the
Updates the
Focus areas
for growth
Focuses growth in
Focuses growth
Focuses growth in
units than present)*
25,157 new residents from 2022-2046*
comprehensive
plan and code
Downtown and
Centers and
Corridors
comprehensive
plan and code
in mixed-use,
transit-oriented
development
Allows more
neighborhoodserving
commercial uses
Simplifies Land
Use Plan
Housing
mix
63% of the City’s
total housing as
single unit housing
Housing
Would provide
affordability
enough housing
capacity at incomes
above 80% of the
median*
comprehensive plan
and code
downtown, regional
hubs, and areas with
greatest investment in
transit and
transportation
Allows more
neighborhood-serving
commercial uses
Simplifies land use
plan
59% of the City’s
59% of the City’s total
Would provide
Would provide
total housing as
single unit
housing
enough housing
capacity
affordable at all
income levels
housing as single unit
housing
enough housing
capacity affordable at
all income levels
Would not provide
enough housing
capacity at incomes
less than 80% of
the median**
Job
projections
34,850 new jobs*** 24,939 new
jobs***
38,848 new jobs***
*This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022. Population is
adjusted to 2022-46 instead of 2023-46 using state data for a consistent 2022 base year.
**Area median income is $70,600 for a one-person household, $80,700 for a two-person household, $90,800 for a
three-person household, or $100,800 for a four-person household as of 2025.
***Each alternative studies a job projection from a different data source. The different numbers are not based on
an alternative’s likelihood to produce more or fewer jobs.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
4
AGENDA
[Page 24]
Alternative Concepts
Alternative 1: Stay the Course
Key Features
Alternative 2: Distributed and Balanced
Alternative 3: Center City and Regional Hubs
Growth Intensity
Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 25]
Alternatives 2 and 3 would better meet the objectives for the plan update than Alternative 1.
Ability to Meet Objectives
Objectives
Alternative 1: Stay
the Course
Alternative 2:
Distributed and
Balanced
Alternative 3:
Center City and
Regional Hubs
Meet Periodic Update
Requirements
Less
Most
Most
Accommodate Growth:
Housing at All Affordability
Levels
More
Most
Most
Accommodate Growth:
Jobs
More
More
Most
Clarify the Plan
Less
Most
Most
Simplify the Plan and
Codes
Less
Most
Most
Protect Critical Areas
More
Most
Most
Fast-Track Desired Growth
Less
Most
Most
Alignment with Vision
Statement
Less
Most
Most
Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
Study Area
This EIS primarily focuses on the Spokane city limits. These city study areas are referenced in the EIS:
Northwest Spokane
Northeast Spokane
South Spokane
West Plains
Center City, overlapping several study areas, including Downtown Spokane
Division corridor, straddling Northwest and Northeast Spokane
Within these broad study areas, the EIS also mentions Neighborhood Council boundaries.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
1
AGENDA
[Page 26]
Spokane Study Areas
Sources: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
2
AGENDA
[Page 27]
Abbreviated Summary of Impacts (see Draft EIS for full context)
Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Impacts from
Stormwater runoff best management
construction (soil
disturbance, erosion,
water pollution, and soil
contamination)
Increased pollution and
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
rainfall runoff due to
growth and increased
hard surfaces
Alternative 1 has the
highest impacts (more
growth on undeveloped
land)
practices
Increased density (reduces sprawl)
New climate policies and updated critical
areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3
Potential measures:
Updated stormwater controls
Critical area buffer restoration
Protecting tree canopy
Review Spokane Municipal Code
Section 17E.010 Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area for additional
protections, such as addressing
demands on aquifer as temperatures
increase
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives see a net New climate policies in Alternatives 2 and 3
decrease in
Potential measures:
transportation
emissions
Emissions from nonNo significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
transportation sources
would be highest under
Alternatives 1 and 3
Differences among
alternatives are small at
the citywide scale
Investments in multi-modal
transportation infrastructure
Fees that reduce traffic congestion
Mixed uses and density
Electric vehicle adoption
Building electrification and energy
efficiency incentives
Designated truck routes
Tree canopy protection
Street sweeping to reduce dust
Development standards for buildings
and air filtering near air pollution
sources like freeways
Education on air pollutants
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
3
AGENDA
[Page 28]
Plants and Animals
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
New development in currently
New climate policies and updated
Increased impervious surfaces
Potential measures:
vegetated areas, impacting fish
and wildlife habitats
affecting aquatic habitats
(runoff, heat, less shade)
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
Construction could impact
habitat through runoff of soils
and sediments, equipment spills,
and noise
Alternative 1 has the highest
impacts due to location of
growth and more growth on
undeveloped land
critical areas regulations in
Alternatives 2 and 3
More program resources for
tree canopy cover
Incentives for habitat
conservation
Land acquisition in key areas
Adaptive management policies
for critical areas and shorelines
Code that limits clearing and
soil disturbance
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Highest levels of growth in areas Spokane Municipal Code regulations
that are already higher intensity
Greater development intensity
over time due to infill
More middle housing types and
for land use, urban form, and
historic preservation
Potential measures:
Apply cultural resources
discovery policies to full city
limits
Construction noise rules and
other noise standards
Additional development
standards for light and shading
Investments to reduce heat
and noise
ADUs
All the alternatives
have the potential
for significant
adverse impacts to
cultural resources.
No unavoidable
significant adverse
impacts expected to
land use, urban
form, and
environmental
justice.
Some tree, noise, shadow, view,
potential historic and
archeological resource impacts
Alternatives 2 and 3 update
neighborhood and urban design
policies, and add climate
policies, to address development
compatibility, investments in
amenities, and climate resilience
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
4
AGENDA
[Page 29]
Population, Employment, and Housing
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Some housing policy and code
Updates to comprehensive plan
changes from the Housing
Action Plan
More jobs in Northeast Spokane
and Center City
Inadequate housing capacity to
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
meet targets for lower income
bands (under 80% Area Median
Income) under Alternative 1
More opportunities for
moderate and high intensity
residential and mixed-use
development in Alternatives 2
and 3
More housing displacement
impacts under Alternatives 2
and 3, but greater housing
production and diversity
Higher jobs to housing ratio than
current in Alternatives 1 and 3
Alternative 1 has the highest
impacts
under Alternatives 2 and 3 to
address housing targets for all
incomes, displacement, racially
disparate impacts, and housing
barriers
Spokane Housing Action Plan
strategies
StartUp Spokane program for
business resources
Potential measures:
Rental Assistance Fund
Public Development Authority
Land banking
Use of development
agreements
Minimum density
requirements
Incentives for affordable
commercial tenant space
Other measures as detailed in
DEIS section 3.5.3
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives accommodate
Alternatives 2 and 3 meet housing
citywide growth targets
Alternative 1 has the highest
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
impacts due to inadequate
housing capacity for lower
income bands (under 80% Area
Median Income)
targets at all income levels and
address other state requirements
for the periodic update, including
housing and climate planning
Alternatives 2 and 3 are better
aligned with state requirements
and regional, county, and local
plans
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
5
AGENDA
[Page 30]
Transportation
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
All alternatives would continue
Planned roadway and transit
making pedestrian
improvements
improvements but Alternatives 2 Current transportation impact fee
and 3 may accelerate them
program
All alternatives would continue
Potential measures:
making bicycle improvements
Transportation Demand
Alternative 1 has the highest
Strategies to encourage
vehicle miles traveled per capita
carpooling, vanpooling, transit,
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
walking, biking, and telework
expected to have a slightly
Transportation Systems
higher share of walking
Management and Operations
All alternatives would have
impacts on road intersection
levels of service
and signal timing
Agency partnerships
Public Services
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Increased demand for police,
Adopted Comprehensive Plan,
Alternative 1 would increase
An increased local sales and use tax
fire/emergency medical services,
schools, parks, libraries, and
solid waste
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
demand in the Center City,
existing centers and corridors,
and less developed areas
Alternatives 2 and 3 would
reinforce growth in already
developed areas
Mead School District would see
more student growth under
Alternative 1 and Spokane
School District would see less
Capital Facilities Plan, and other
policies support capital facilities and
public services planning
to support a Public Safety Tax
became effective April 1, 2025
New climate policies under
Alternatives 2 and 3
New Capital Facilities Plan under
Alternatives 2 and 3
Potential measures:
Impact fees for schools, parks,
or fire
Parks fee-in-lieu program
Parkland dedication
opportunities in key locations
Partnerships for education and
childcare spaces and parks and
natural lands
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
6
AGENDA
[Page 31]
Utilities
Likely Impacts
Mitigation Options
Increased demand for
City water conservation programs
Ongoing planning for water and wastewater
utilities due to growth
Increased concentration
No significant
adverse impacts
expected with
mitigation.
of utility users under
Alternatives 2 and 3
(better efficiency, but
potential upgrades
needed for energy,
water, and sewer)
systems to address growth and changing
demand
Regular energy planning with Avista
Potential measures:
Specific upgrades
needed would vary by
alternative based on
location of growth
More local energy resources
Energy-efficiency infrastructure
Upgraded stormwater infrastructure
Minimizing runoff
Protection of critical aquifer recharge
areas
Next Steps
The City of Spokane is requesting comments from the
public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the
Draft EIS from December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026.
Comments are due by 5:00 PM, February 18. All written
comments should be directed to:
Tirrell Black, Assistant Planning Director
City of Spokane
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd
Spokane, WA 99201
509.625.6185 | PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
Submittal of comments by email is preferred.
Please include in the subject line “PlanSpokane
2046 Draft EIS Comments.”
A series of public and agency workshops are planned during the Draft EIS comment period. For the latest
information on the workshop topics and times, please see the project website at:
my.spokanecity.org/planspokane/. After public feedback and the selection of a preferred alternative, a
Final Environmental Impact Statement will be written that analyzes the chosen path forward. The Final
EIS will also respond to comments received on the Draft EIS.
PlanSpokane 2046: Draft EIS Summary
7
AGENDA
[Page 32]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment
Summary
Updated March 2026
The City of Spokane is commencing a periodic update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan as required
by the Growth Management Act (GMA). A “periodic update” is the state’s term for a full review of a
Comprehensive Plan to make sure it is in conformance with any legislative changes to state law. The
update also provides an opportunity to reevaluate the community’s vision for the next twenty years
and how to support that envisioned growth.
As part of PlanSpokane 2046, the City of Spokane is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifies and analyzes a range of alternatives that
describe different ways the City could grow and develop, known as growth alternatives. The City of
Spokane Draft Environmental Impact Statement went out for public comment on December 18,
2025. Over 200 public comments were received by the deadline of February 18, 2026. The City,
following a request for extension of time, then extended the comment period an additional 15 days
to end on March 5, 2026, at 5 p.m.
To support the public in making their comments, community outreach occurred that focused on
providing information on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and how to submit comments.
The PlanSpokane 2046 Draft EIS StoryMap presented the technical analysis in a more accessible
format. A virtual Lunch and Learn occurred on January 13, 2026, providing information on the
PlanSpokane 2046 process and key details about the growth alternatives analyzed. Finally, a series
of PlanSpokane Listening Hours were held, with Planning staff out in the community to answer
question about and discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
All materials for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are available on the project page:
https://my.spokanecity.org/planspokane/draft-eis/
Comment Summary
In total, the City of Spokane received 203 written emails and 2 written comment cards during the
public comment period, with some commenters submitting more than one written statement.
11 Agency and Tribal Governments Comments:
o Coeur d’Alene Tribe
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 33]
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Washington State Department of Transportation (2 written emails)
Spokane County
Spokane Transit Authority
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Natural Resources
City of Spokane Department of Integrated Capital Management (2 written emails)
City of Spokane & Spokane County Historic Preservation Commission (2 written
comments)
4 Neighborhood Councils and Community Assembly Comments:
o Community Assembly (2 written emails)
o Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood Council
o Grandview-Thorpe Neighborhood Council
10 Institutional/Organizational Comments:
o Rockwood Retirement Communities
o 350 Spokane Interfaith Committee (2 written emails)
o Spokane Regional Transportation Council
o Visit Spokane
o Futurewise
o Spokane River Keepers
o Friends of Spokane Trees
o Spokane Falls Community College Environmental Club
o Downtown Spokane Partnership
180 Individuals
Common Themes
Below is a thematic summary of the public comments. Please note that this is a high-level summary
and a full comment analysis and response to comments will be published in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Preference for Alternative 3, 2, or a combination of Alternatives 3 & 2
General support for some elements of Alternative 2, Alternative 3, or both
Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Protection and preservation of natural and historic resources
Public transportation and infrastructure capacity
Potential neighborhood impacts
Affordable housing units
Potential obstacles to local businesses and development due to rising costs, regulatory
barriers
What’s Next
The City of Spokane will consider all the timely comments received during the public comment
period and will be responding to the substantive comments in writing. This will be published in an
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 34]
appendix in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Following SEPA guidance, which regulates
the Environmental Impact Statement process, possible responses that will be considered include:
Explain how the alternatives, including the proposed action, were modified;
Explain how the analysis was supplemented, improved, or modified;
Make factual corrections; or
Explain why the comment does not warrant further response
The public comments will help inform the development of the preferred alternative, along with the
full public engagement to this date and the environmental review within the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The preferred alternative may be composed of some combination of the three
different alternatives, based on feedback. Ultimately, the preferred alternative will shape the final
Comprehensive Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement as the preferred direction for future
growth and investment in the City of Spokane.
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Summary –
March 2026
AGENDA
[Page 35]
Exhibit D
Public Engagement Summaries
2025 Community Engagement Summary
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
AGENDA
[Page 36]
P L A N S P O K A N E
2 0 4 6
2025 Community
Engagement
S U M M A R Y
AGENDA
[Page 37]
2
Climate Focus Groups
3
Surveying for Climate
Resiliency
4
Earth Day Workshop
5
Tribal Engagement
6
Future Growth and
Guiding Policies
7
Conclusion
The City of Spokane is conducting a periodic
update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
dubbed PlanSpokane 2046. A “periodic
update” is the state’s term for a full review
of a Comprehensive Plan to make sure it’s
in conformance with any legislative changes
to state law. Due at the end of 2026, the
Periodic Update will identify policies and
future regulations to guide the next 20
years of our city.
2025 was a busy year for community
feedback on Spokane’s future vision,
climate resiliency, future growth, and
guiding policies, with over 3,400 total
community responses. This document
provides a summary of most of the
feedback heard so far, with more
engagement to occur throughout 2026.
→
1
Community Visioning
CONTENT
AGENDA
1
[Page 38]
COMMUNITY VISIONING
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City of
Spokane conducted an early visioning process
to understand what the community wants for
the next twenty years. Over 300 community
members participated in the various
visioning activities, providing insights into how
the City should grow. Ultimately the feedback
will identify the different ways the City can
meet these goals for growth or put differently,
how to meet Spokane’s envisioned future.
Based on community feedback, a draft vision
statement for the Comprehensive Plan has
been identified:
“Spokane aims to foster a vibrant, resilient,
and inclusive city by supporting economic
growth, environmental stewardship, and
the diverse needs of the whole community.
The City is dedicated to ensuring access to
attainable housing, safe streets, and thriving
neighborhoods while inspiring innovation,
cultural vitality, and connection for all
Spokane residents.”
Launched in early January and running
through April, the PlanSpokane 2046 visioning
process resulted in key themes to inform the
future growth and policies for the City of
Spokane. The collective themes are to the
right, with each activity bringing its own
insights.
The vision board highlighted a desire for
nature and environmental stewardship,
community connection, opportunities for
housing and jobs, and improved access to
public spaces. The Community Visioning
Workshop Series and corresponding survey
received feedback pointing towards a
welcoming and livable City with a mix of uses
that
support
thriving
and
connected
neighborhoods. The final Spring Market popup reinforced these ideas, while highlighting
that the City should be walkable/bikeable,
healthy, equitable, and safe.
Read the full PlanSpokane
Community Visioning
Engagement Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/PlanSp
okane-Visioning
VISIONING THEMES
Access to nature
Sustainability and
environmental
stewardship
Healthy and
clean
Welcoming and diverse
Accessible
Family-friendly
Connected
Human-centered
Safe
NATURE
COMMUNITY
Good jobs
Culture and arts
economy
Cutting-edge
New industries
Reuse
INNOVATION
Affordable
Walkable and bikefriendly
Access to
neighborhood services
Attractive
LIVABLE
AGENDA
2
[Page 39]
CLIMATE FOCUS GROUPS
As part of PlanSpokane 2046 effort to incorporate climate and resiliency
policies into the Comprehensive Plan in alignment with HB 1181, the
City of Spokane held focus groups to hear from communities impacted
by climate hazards. Their feedback informed the Climate Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment to bring together data and lived experiences to
identify climate risks and vulnerability in Spokane.
Learn more at
my.spokanecity.org/climateplanning
CLIMATE JUSTICE FOCUS
NORTHEAST SPOKANE FOCUS
The Youth focus group had 11 participants aged
14 to 18, providing insight from a vulnerable
population still in development and who may still
be dependent on adults for their safety and wellbeing.
The Climate Justice focus group had 8 participants from local community-based organizations
representing houseless, Muslim, Asian, BIPOC,
immigrant, refugee, and environmental justice
communities.
The Northeast Spokane focus group had 17
participants who all lived in Northeast Spokane,
an area of the City underrepresented in public
engagement while being highly impacted by
climate hazards.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Empowerment through knowledge is key.
Air quality and wildfire smoke are more
immediate and disruptive climate concerns.
Heat is isolating youth from activities and
social connection.
Strong connection between nature access
and mental health.
Growing anxiety about long-term ecological
shifts and disconnection from natural world.
Public transit and bike infrastructure are
critical services for youth.
Desire for systemic change to provide stability
and not worsen social inequities.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Unhoused individuals, elders, renters,
disabled people, and non-English speakers
are among the most vulnerable.
Language access and communication gaps
are major barriers.
Housing quality and income contribute to
climate vulnerability.
Partner with local nonprofits to support
community trust and cultural relevance.
People often prioritize survival needs over
long-term climate issues.
Increase accountability.
Key takeaways from the focus group include:
Community connection and shared solutions
can increase community resiliency.
Poor air quality is a major concern.
Lack of shade and extreme heat reduce
access to services.
Practical, community-based climate
education is needed.
Stigma and infrastructure gaps reduce public
transit use.
Need to align development with
environmental goals.
Center equity and accessibility.
YOUTH FOCUS
*A second round of climate focus groups occurred in November and December 2025, with results not yet available by the time of this publication.
A summary of these focus groups (youth, climate justice, food access, and resource constrained) will be available at PlanSpokane.org in early 2026.
AGENDA
3
[Page 40]
SURVEYING FOR CLIMATE
RESILIENCY
“Biggest obstacle is feeling isolated in these attempts at conservation.
Like my efforts don’t matter.”
- Community Climate Planning Survey Respondent
Local, state, and national data and community lived experiences are all integral in understanding
how to best support local resiliency in Spokane. During key times of the climate and resiliency
planning effort, two community-wide surveys were created to learn from those who live, work, and
visit in Spokane.
The Community Climate Planning Survey
asked community members to identify
climate hazards and impacts in Spokane as
well as future desires.
Read the full Community Climate
Planning Survey Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneClimate-Survey
The Community Climate Policy Survey
then built upon the prior community
feedback to identify potential policy
decisions.
Read the full Community Climate
Policy Survey Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneClimate-Policy-Survey
AGENDA
4
[Page 41]
COMMUNITY CLIMATE
SURVEY
CLIMATE POLICY
SURVEY
1,573 RESPONSES
1,419 RESPONSES
DECEMBER 6, 2024 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2025
JULY 21 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025
KEY TAKEAWAYS
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Wildfires, extreme heat, and intense storms identified as top three
hazards of concern now, with extreme heat, wildfire, and smoke
from wildfires as top concerns for the next 20 years.
Only 14.91% of respondents indicated having not been personally
impacted by any of the identified climate hazards.
Water, human health, and food systems were collectively ranked as
the most important climate and resiliency topics.
Public investment and infrastructure was the top ranked type of
policy, with regulations ranked the lowest.
Costs and time were identified as primary obstacles in reducing
household environmental impacts.
Themes for future actions the City should consider include:
Lead by Example
Water Conservation and Waste Management
Community Collaboration and Engagement
Urban Green Spaces
Active Transportation
Disaster Preparedness
Equal Access
Sustainable Development
Potential solutions to increase Spokane’s resiliency included water and
waste reduction, incentives for more sustainable upgrades, tree
management, and more trees and greenspace.
Future policies should be prioritized based on reduction of
environment harm, community health benefits, co-benefits,
feasibility, and cost considerations.
Rising costs of living and basic needs and changes to recreational
activities were the top felt impacts within the past five years.
Agriculture and food systems were ranked as most at risk from
extreme weather and climate impacts in Spokane.
AGENDA
5
[Page 42]
EARTH DAY WORKSHOP
On April 22, 2025, the City of Spokane hosted an Earth Day Community Workshop to
learn from and share with Spokane’s community. Twenty-one community members
shared their experiences with climate hazards and how we can support a more
resilient Spokane.
The workshop was a drop-in style event with posters at
4 stations, where attendees engaged in activities,
interacted with the Climate Vulnerability Index online
mapping tool, and were able to have in-depth
conversations with staff members. Feedback received
during the workshop informed the Climate Risk &
Vulnerability Assessment and will support the
development of future policies for a resilient and
adaptive Spokane.
Read the full Earth Day
Workshop Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneEarth-Day
Key takeaways from the drop-in workshop include:
Alternative transportation options and green
space/tree protection were ranked as the top
climate pollution reduction actions.
Preserve, restore, and expand nature was ranked
as the top climate resilience action.
Supporting local, sustainable food systems and
organizing community received the most support as
individual actions to support climate resiliency.
Support for increased and improved bike and
pedestrian infrastructure.
Attendees wanted to expand public transportation
and promote connectivity.
Support for infill and mixed-use development.
AGENDA
Promote water conservation throughout the City.
6
[Page 43]
Read the full Tribal Engagement
Workgroup Summary at
https://tinyurl.com/SpokaneTribal-Workgroup
In early 2025, the City of Spokane launched a Tribal
Engagement Workgroup (TEW) to ensure that
Indigenous voices and knowledge systems shape its
climate planning and inform the City’s 2026
Comprehensive Plan. The TEW brought together
regional Tribes and urban Native organizations in a
culturally grounded process led by Kauffman &
Associates, Inc. (KAI), a Native-owned consulting firm.
Prioritize funding for Native-led resilience hubs,
food systems, and youth programs.
Embed cultural infrastructure - gardens,
sweat lodges, community gathering spaces - into
neighborhood planning.
Establish an Indigenous advisory council with
co-governance authority in climate planning.
Reframe climate indicators to include cultural,
spiritual, and relational measures of
wellbeing.
Expand data collection to include Indigenousdefined metrics, oral histories, and story maps.
Develop tailored emergency management
strategies for Native families across Spokane.
→
Over the course of four sessions and intervening
conversations, TEW participants identified climate
vulnerabilities rooted in the lived experiences of
Native communities, including loss of cultural
access, urban invisibility, health disparities,
water insecurity, and gaps in emergency
planning. They called for a broader definition of
vulnerability that includes spiritual, cultural, and
intergenerational dimensions and stressed the need
for Indigenous co-governance and investment in
Native-led solutions.
Recommendations for policy development:
TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT
AGENDA
7
[Page 44]
FUTURE GROWTH AND
GUIDING POLICIES
The City of Spokane held a community workshop series on future
growth and guiding policies in November 2025. These in-person
workshops included discussion, mapping exercises, and feedback
opportunities related to various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Over 100 community members participated in the workshop series,
which included one meeting in each City Council District, as well as a
citywide meeting downtown.
In addition to informational posters, the
workshops included station activities to
gather feedback from attendees. Stations
included questions on guiding policies,
displacement, a proposed land use schema,
and the three Growth Alternatives being
evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Mapping exercises on mixed-use
zoning and transportation amenities
created spatial information to inform onthe-ground
proposals.
Climate
and
resiliency feedback was also received,
including on City actions, important topics,
environmental justice, and the prioritization
of future policies.
When asked about topics of importance
to be integrated into the City of Spokane’s
next twenty years, key themes from the
community included:
Accessibility
Employment and job creation
A full summary will
be available at
PlanSpokane.org
once finalized
Revitalization
More third places and community
connection
Parks and access to nature
Bikeable/walkable neighborhoods
Affordable housing
AGENDA
8
[Page 45]
→
CONCLUSION
There’s even more work ahead in 2026...
In addition to the larger engagement efforts
mentioned above, the City of Spokane has been
busy popping up at community events, presenting
before Neighborhood Councils, and meeting with
organizations and partner agencies to hear from
the community. Staff have also presented before
City Council, Spokane Plan Commission, Climate
Resilience and Sustainability Board, Transportation
Commission, Housing Action Subcommittee, and
numerous other City commissions and boards.
Have a group that may be interested in hearing a
presentation? Does your organization want a
tailored discussion about PlanSpokane 2046? Have
an event where staff can attend? Reach out to the
Planning Team at PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org to
inquire about availability.
Opportunities for public feedback in early 2026 include the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Chapter Review processes. Feedback from these components will then result in the selection of Preferred
Alternative and Final Environmental Impact Statement, as well as final goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Final adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan is tentatively slated for the end of 2026.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement with different ways the City can grow in order
to meet state requirements and the community vision will be issued in December 2025,
with a 60 day public comment period. This document compares potential ways the City
can grow, allowing community members to provide feedback on Spokane’s future.
Community input will help decisionmakers select the Preferred Alternative, which is the
growth strategy for Spokane’s next twenty years, in early 2026.
Chapter Review
The City’s Comprehensive Plan is being updated with revised and new goals and policies
to support community needs. Draft versions of chapters are available for public
feedback at PlanSpokane.org under “Chapter Review”. Comments can help direct
language and identify potential gaps in future policy direction. New chapters and
language revised based on community feedback will periodically be available
throughout early 2026.
AGENDA
9
[Page 46]
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org
Questions or comments? Email the Planning Team at
PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
AGENDA
[Page 47]
PlanSpokane
Future Growth and Guiding Policies
Engagement Summary
December 2025
AGENDA
[Page 48]
Table of Contents
Background
3
Community Workshop Series
4
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Station 2: Displacement
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane – Transportation
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
Next Steps
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
Appendices
14
District 1 Memo
District 2 Memo
District 3 Memo
Community-Wide Memo
Workshop Posters
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
2
AGENDA
[Page 49]
Background
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update to its Comprehensive Plan, the City of
Spokane has been seeking public feedback on
the City’s next twenty years throughout 2025.
While regular updates to the Comprehensive
Plan have occurred, this will be the first
substantial update since the Comprehensive
Plan was first adopted in 2001. With the
significant population growth and changing local
factors Spokane has experienced since then,
this update provides the community with an
opportunity to reevaluate how they want the
City to grow. The goals of this update are to meet
all state legislative requirements adopted since
2017, incorporate community input around
changing needs and wants, and to streamline
the Plan to make it more user friendly.
What is a Comprehensive
Plan?
A Comprehensive Plan is the community’s
vision for how the city grows and invests. It
is mandated by state law requiring a “road
map” for fast-growing cities, known as the
Growth Management Act. Spokane must
have a Comprehensive Plan to manage
population growth, with goals that include
reducing sprawl, supporting efficient
multimodal transportation, protecting the
environment, and many more.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision
for the city – looking at a horizon of twenty
years. It guides implementation through
Capital projects, City programs, and
regulations.
Being the first substantial update since 2001, the
City of Spokane has determined that this
proposal is likely to have a significant and potentially negative impact on the environment. As such,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c) and will be
prepared as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 effort. The first step of the EIS process is known as
“scoping”. Both before and during the scoping comment period, the City of Spokane Department of
Planning and Economic Development provided opportunities for the community to be engaged in
the process of identifying the future vision for Spokane’s next twenty years. The Community
Visioning Engagement Summary provides a recap of the feedback heard.
Once the overall vision for the future is determined, the next step of the EIS process is to evaluate
different ways the City can meet that vision while also accommodating future growth. To that end,
the City of Spokane held a community workshop series on future growth and guiding policies in
November 2025 for initial feedback on different ways the City of Spokane can grow, as well as the
goals and policies to get us there.
More information about the PlanSpokane 2046
Periodic Update can be found at PlanSpokane.org
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
3
AGENDA
[Page 50]
Community Workshop Series
At the beginning of 2025, community members provided invaluable feedback to create a 20-year
vision for the City of Spokane. Since then, there has been ongoing work to identify different ways to
reach that vision. To present the community with those options on how the City can grow, and
receive feedback on goals and policies, a community workshop series on future growth and guiding
policies was held in November 2025. One workshop was held in each City Council District, with one
community-wide workshop held downtown. Over
100 individuals attended one or more of the
workshops, providing valuable feedback to help
shape the future of the City of Spokane.
Figure 1. Community members participate in the District 1
Community Workshop.
These in-person workshops included discussion,
mapping exercises, and feedback opportunities
related to various aspects of the Comprehensive
Plan, including the new element of climate and
resiliency. Each station sought reactions and
comments on how community members wanted
to shape the next twenty years. Kids activities and
catered food was also available.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
After learning more about the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update and Environmental Impact
Statement process through informational posters, the first activity station revolved around the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the current Chapter Review process. Community members
were asked to identify what topics they want to make sure are addressed in the updated
Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the currently proposed amendments.
Themes from the four community workshops include:
Accessibility (housing, public spaces, “sittable”
neighborhoods)
Incentives to revitalize vacant properties
Bikeable streets, including protected bike lanes
Art districts
Address land speculation
Indoor swimming pools
Incentives for affordable and mixed-use
housing
Address employment and job creation
More “third places” for community
connection
Levels of service for fire safety
Daycare centers and support
Creating neighborhood identities
More greenways and trails
Greater civic engagement, involvement, and
transparency
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
4
AGENDA
[Page 51]
Conservation/migration corridors and natural
playgrounds
Reduced dependency on single occupancy
vehicles
Context sensitive design standards
Allow for more mixed uses in neighborhoods
to support walkability, create local “hubs”
Create/support quality and beautiful places
to live
Support for unhoused residents, including
work programs
Sidewalk and pedestrian safety
Coordination of road construction to
prevent multiple roadway maintenance in
the same direction
Station 2: Displacement
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Spokane
has completed analysis on racially disparate impacts and displacement risk to meet state legislative
requirements (HB 1220). After being presented with the
three different types of displacement – physical,
economic, and cultural – community members were
asked to help brainstorm causes of housing and small
business displacement, as well as how the City of
Spokane could address those causes.
Causes identified included high housing costs and lack
of housing inventory to keep up with population
increases, mobile home parks being replaced,
businesses leaving and/or not having patrons due to
perception of safety or vandalism, lack of inclusive
and accessible transit and public spaces, impact of
taxes, buildings being demolished for parking lots or
shopping centers, vacant or underutilized lots, increase
in housing costs due to surrounding development,
lack of pedestrian infrastructure, high insurance
costs/losing property insurance due to wildfire risk,
corporate rental ownership, and climate risks (heat,
lack of trees).
Figure 2. City of Spokane Displacement Risk Map from the
Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Report (2025).
Potential actions to address the causes included streamlining permit processing, the City being
involved in public housing development, replacing existing housing with affordable multifamily housing, create supportive zoning before development is expected to occur, wildfire risk
mitigation (to address insurance issues), rental costs management, increase transportation
options (pedestrian friendly streets/bus routes/road access), and support community resiliency
to climate hazards.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
5
AGENDA
[Page 52]
Station 3: Land Use Schema
One aspect of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update includes updating the land use schema for
the City of Spokane, with the goal of reducing the number of land use categories. Land use is
essentially what kinds of uses can be built where, and community members were asked to provide
feedback on the proposed land use categories: Urban Agriculture, Residential Low, Residential High,
Commercial, Centers & Corridors, Institutional, Downtown, Industrial, and Open Space. Community
members were asked what uses they would like to see in each proposed land use and where they
should be located.
Urban Agriculture
• Allow flower growers, small vegetable and fruit farmers market-style food production
• Locate to avoid impacts of potential pesticides
• Preserve agriculture in the city by only allowing agricultural uses
Residential Low
• Ensure there is human-scale and human serving design, walkable third places, a transition
between low- and high-density areas, and that the scale of residential and commercial
uses match
• Allow parking, community gardens, small mixed uses (cafes, ice cream parlors, bookstores,
medical uses like a dentist), indoor community pools, community gathering spaces, and
professional offices
• Do not allow gas stations
• Create a process of neighborhood input on project-by-project basis for non-standard uses
• Develop incentives for neighborhood businesses
• Prioritize adaptive reuse over new development
• Locate near centers and corridors and other high intensity uses
Residential High
• Ensure accessible housing (no stairs)
• Expand into existing lower scale residential, such as near transit or in close proximity to
amenities
• Have a minimum density
Commercial
• Expand mixed uses
• Leverage vacant commercial areas to add business or apartments
• Establish zoning requirements for gas stations/convenience stores related to sober living
and other affordable housing services
Centers & Corridors
• Allow multi-unit housing and trade/live-work makerspaces
• Do not allow drive throughs, gas stations, convenience stores, hostile architecture, or
single-unit homes
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
6
AGENDA
[Page 53]
Locate throughout Division once NS Corridor is complete and traffic reduces
Downtown
• Allow taller buildings and larger business spaces
Institutional
• Incentivize apartments
• Allow community pools
Industrial
• Encourage adaptive reuse of existing spaces
Open Space
• Allow undeveloped/natural parks with trails, mountain biking, indoor community pools
• Ensure enough parks/trails for those living in dense areas/apartments to have outdoor
access, as well as accessible open spaces
• The full length of the Spokane River should be a public park
• Prioritize passive natural spaces
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
A significant result of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update and Environmental Impact Statement
will be the selection of a Preferred Alternative – the desired direction for growth and prioritization
for the City of Spokane’s next twenty years. To identify that
Preferred Alternative, the City must study different Growth
Alternatives, which are different ways to address population
growth, economic goals, and the community vision. More detailed
analysis and comparisons will be available during the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement public comment period
expected to kick off in December 2025. This poster station allowed
for an initial reaction to the potential options.
Community members were presented with the three Growth
Alternatives being evaluated as part of the PlanSpokane 2046
Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
Figure 3. Community members participate in the
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state
District 2 Community Workshops.
legislation, Alternative 2 (Distributed and Balanced) and
Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed out of earlier visioning and scoping
engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a snapshot of environmental impact
evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives, community members were asked to vote
on their preferred growth strategy.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
7
AGENDA
[Page 54]
Alternative 2 received the most votes with 25. Alternative 3 came in second with 7 votes. One
vote selected a middle ground between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 did not
receive any votes (presumably due to community understanding that it does not meet all state
legislative requirements).
Rather than voting for a specific Alternative, most community members provided comments on the
City of Spokane’s future growth. The Preferred Alternative can be a combination of elements of the
different Growth Alternatives, with these comments providing direction on what aspects were
viewed positively from each alternative.
In general, community members liked the interconnectedness of Alternative 2, but also saw the
benefit of the Center City focus of Alternative 3 on businesses, community safety, and more
housing. Full comments can be found in the workshop-specific memos in the appendix of this summary.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use
designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different sizes and
scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City.
Figure 4. Mixed-use descriptions provided for the Map Your Future Spokane exercise. A higher resolution image can be found in the Workshop Posters
appendix.
In general, MU-TOD was located along Division/Ruby, Market Street, Mission Avenue, North
Monroe, near Shadle Library on Wellesley, in parts of downtown and Cliff-Cannon, Hamilton and
the northernmost portion of Nevada Street, and in areas along 29th.
MU-1 was located in Hillyard, Nevada Heights just east of Division, the middle of Cliff-Cannon, north
Five Mile Prairie, in parts of Audubon/Downriver and West Central, between Northwest and
Balboa/South Indian Trail, North Monroe, near Shadle Library on Wellesley, and downtown.
MU-2 was located in Nevada Heights, the middle of Bemiss, adjacent to Chief Garry Park within the
Chief Garry Park neighborhood, the northwest corner of Manito/Cannon Hill, north of Comstock,
Shiloh Hills, Northwest, North Hill, along Indian Trail Road, and in areas along 29th.
MU-3 was located in the middle of Hillyard and Bemiss, multiple locations in Cliff-Cannon, on West
Sunset Boulevard, Audubon/Downriver, Northwest, and along the edges of Manito/Cannon Hill.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
8
AGENDA
[Page 55]
Additional comments about mixed-uses included:
Provide more uses in proximity to housing to
reduce distance/need for transportation
There’s currently a lack of affordable and larger
retail near neighborhoods, not just small
No more drive throughs
More intensity along arterials, transition to
higher commercial, and then allow residential
Need a Latah-Cannon Corridor Plan to address
traffic, 195 and I-90 ramp
More health and transportation access in West
Central
Encourage trades academy
Increase pedestrian/bike infrastructure along
Northwest Boulevard
Trade and makerspaces in West Central
Mobility connectivity for all modes in East
Hillyard is a local priority
MU-2 should be everywhere
No mixed-use in neighborhoods, concerned
over exploitative development
Need parks and trails in Hillyard
Designated business district/center/corridor
down east Broadway of West Central
Support the creation of 24-hour daycare
Create protections against displacement in
Chief Garry Park around City Line stops,
including increasing resources for community
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane – Transportation
Through a mapping exercise to indicate preferred development types and street upgrades,
community members were asked to identify what type of street improvements they want to see
along major transit stops, with street trees and greater connectivity being consistent themes. Full
summaries can be found in the workshop-specific memos in the appendix of this summary.
District 1
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
District 2
December 2025
9
AGENDA
[Page 56]
District 3
Citywide
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Another significant component of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update is the integration of
climate and resiliency policies into the Comprehensive Plan to align with recent state legislation.
Climate Planning efforts have been ongoing, with this workshop series providing an opportunity to
bring all elements of the update together for community input. Workshop attendees were first
asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to take to support local climate
resiliency.
Key themes from the feedback include tree canopy expansion and protection; resilient and
equitable development; climate resilience education and community engagement; water
conservation and quality; energy efficiency and weatherization; reducing car reliance; air
quality and pollution reduction; fire safety and mitigation; access and preservation to natural
spaces; and housing and infrastructure.
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were presented with
top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning engagement, including wildfire
smoke and extreme heat, water conservation, human health, food systems, tree canopy and green
spaces, transportation and infrastructure, education, collaboration, and financial barriers. With
those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics of importance.
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
10
AGENDA
[Page 57]
Topics identified include:
Address financial barriers
Do not exclude businesses from
SpokaneScape program
Greater bike infrastructure and connectivity
Increased shade
Convert unused city property to green spaces
Indoor spaces to escape to during weather
extremes
Trees and native landscaping, including
potential for fruit trees as street trees
Balance between infill development and trees
Green infrastructure/swales
Mental and physical health
Protect mature trees and iconic basalt rocks
Require parking
Incentives for tree planting in the north of the
city
Recognition of limits to growth
Restrict wood burning fireplaces to improve air
quality
Growth numbers should consider possibility of
climate refugees
Food security
Local community solutions to address climate
hazards and resiliency
Impact of Artificial Intelligence
Water conservation
Walkable neighborhoods
More resources directed to conservation
programs
Support creation of more efficient building
construction
Active role of City in tree planting programs
Education programs to support local resiliency
Intersection of natural and built environment
Increase accountability, including for
businesses
Maintenance of street trees
Weatherization/support new windows for
historic homes
“Dead internet” greenhouse gas emissions
Adjust development requirements to allow
more room for trees
Faster and cheaper transit (including through
bus-only lanes and in Latah Valley)
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Environmental justice, as defined by state law,
means the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to
development, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It
includes addressing disproportionate health and
environmental impacts. Community members
were presented with the definition and ways to
assess environmental justice, in order to support
state required policies within the Comprehensive
Plan.
Figure 5. Community members participate in the District 3 Community
Workshops.
Workshop attendees were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice. Key themes included supporting a safe and connected transportation
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
11
AGENDA
[Page 58]
system that does not rely on single-occupancy vehicles, targeting heat mitigation and resiliency
to vulnerable populations, expanding green infrastructure and tree canopy, neighborhood
investment without displacement, and City-funded resiliency investments that support
impacted neighborhoods and communities.
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort will
include a prioritization process, which will help ensure that selected policies can be implemented
and align with state requirements. Presented
with the options of Resilience, Equity, Climate
Pollution Reduction, Logistics, and Risk,
community members were asked to identify
the criteria they believed should be weighted
more heavily than others.
Figure 6. Community members participate in the Citywide Community
Workshops.
Resilience came in first, with 21 votes,
followed by Equity (16 votes) and Climate
Pollution Reduction (15 votes). Logistics
received 8 votes, while Risk had a total of 4
votes.
In addition to what was listed, community members were then asked to identify any other criteria
that should be considered:
Build equity into each criterion
How to reduce homelessness/outdoor
sleeping to make people less vulnerable
Emphasize natural environment as a
component of resilience criteria
Improvement to tree canopy
Inequitable impact of policy
Balancing costs and benefits to ensure
prospective business ventures aren’t impacted
Tighten controls on vehicle emissions
Legislative control to create solutions
Prioritize policies with City action rather than
informational or “encouraging” resident action
Without resilience, we will have a hard time
delivering on the other policies
Clear out underbrush in fire risk areas
Banning of wood burning fireplaces
Spreading out of affordable housing, “stop
consolidating poverty”
Allowing for shelters near services
Next Steps
Feedback received during the community workshops on future growth and guiding policies will
inform amendments to goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as discussion around
the chosen growth strategy (or Preferred Alternative) for Spokane’s next twenty years. Community
members will have the opportunity to take a deeper dive into the details of and comparisons
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
12
AGENDA
[Page 59]
between the Growth Alternatives after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in December 2025, which will include a formal public comment period. More information about
the Draft EIS will be available at PlanSpokane.org upon release. Final adoption of the PlanSpokane
2046 Comprehensive Plan is expected in the later part of 2026.
Figure 7. PlanSpokane 2046 process timeline
Community feedback will be accepted throughout the entire PlanSpokane 2046 process, from
helping select the Preferred Alternative to weighing in on proposed goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
We invite your participation:
Visit the project webpage at PlanSpokane.org to learn more about the planning process
Learn more about the Climate Planning efforts at my.spokanecity.org/climateplanning
Subscribe to the PlanSpokane monthly newsletter to receive timely updates
Attend future meetings and hearings hosted by the City of Spokane
Provide written comments or ask questions to the Planning team by emailing
PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
13
AGENDA
[Page 60]
Appendices –
District 1 Memo
District 2 Memo
District 3 Memo
Community-Wide Memo
Workshop Posters
Future Growth and Guiding Policies Engagement Summary
December 2025
14
AGENDA
[Page 61]
Memo
Re:
District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 1 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on
November 12, 2025 at Yasuhara Middle School. Approximately 22 community members
attended. Feedback received at each station activity is summarized below. A full
engagement summary of the workshop series will be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Move civic engagement
More districts for city council members
More government transparency
Incentives for empty properties on Division following BRT implementation
More third places
Continue partnerships with housing services and neighborhood councils
Bikeable streets.
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Consider the impacts of housing costs because of Division BRT.
Get ahead of zoning along the corridor for middle/multi-unit housing.
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
Page | 1
AGENDA
[Page 62]
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Residential Low:
o Allow professional office
o Allow MU-3 uses (like The Scoop)
Residential High:
o Have minimum density
Centers and Corridors:
o Do not allow single-unit homes
Open Space:
o Include intentional passive recreation
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 5 votes, and Alternative 3 received 1 vote.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Evacuation routes need for Latah
Valley area/Vinegar Flats
Distribute growth to remove silos
between neighborhood and
connected the community.
Capitalize on larger roads to
connect centers and places people
visit
Address Division BRT fully in Alt. 2
and 3.
Require parking for large housing
developments to be located within
garages/parking structure.
Turn parking lots into garages for a
better use of land, especially
around gathering places (e.g.
arena).
Build up, two story buildings waste
land potential
Have services in all areas of the
city.
Lack of ability to make left turns on
Division can cause vacant lots/lack
of businesses/patrons.
Alternative 2 seems to be a natural
approach to what will likely occur
naturally.
Vinegar Flats has a potential for
job growth (mini Hillyard).
Page | 2
AGENDA
[Page 63]
Vinegar Flats is separate from
Latah Valley area and should be
treated as having different
potential
Build up, not out; focus on
downtown and where growth
already exists.
Base Latah Strategy on
infrastructure findings for
connectivity.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD along Division; MU-1 in Hillyard,
Nevada Heights just east of Division, and in the middle of Cliff-Cannon; MU-2 in Nevada
Heights, the middle of Bemiss, adjacent to Chief Garry Park within the Chief Garry Park
neighborhood, the northwest corner of Manito/Cannon Hill, and the north of Comstock; MU3 in the middle of Hillyard and Bemiss, the southeast corner of Bemiss, multiple locations in
Cliff-Cannon, and along the edges of Manito/Cannon Hill.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
Make transportation less required (most uses in close proximity to households)
Lack of affordable and larger retail near neighborhoods, highlighting Bemiss
Mobility connectivity for all modes in East Hillyard is a local priority
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting improved crosswalks and
wider sidewalks along Northwest Boulevard; street trees, lighting and faster bus times
around Vinegar Flats; improved crosswalks Downtown; more street trees on Market Street;
separated bike lanes, improved crosswalks, lighting, and bus shelters along Division between
the Ruby interchange and Wellesley; lighting and wider sidewalks in the Logan
neighborhood, south of Wellesley; and improved bike connections and faster bus times in
Hillyard.
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
Better crosswalks on Wellesley at Driscoll Boulevard
Better lighting along bus routes including Route 28
Hays Park needs sidewalks
Bus shelter at Bridgeport and Glass
Page | 3
AGENDA
[Page 64]
Improve crosswalks at Glass
Need a bus route on Freya in Wellesley area
Fix Hairball intersection at Main/Monroe/Spokane Falls
Pedestrian bridge is needed on Rowan to cross NSC
Bridgeport near Division, people park half on sidewalk and half on street
Fire access at Euclid into Minnehaha needs to be improved
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Facilities and accommodations for
dogs/pets.
More shade on sidewalks.
Reduction of VMTs through denser
housing and more walkability.
Locally fund ore SpoCanopy.
Increase LOS for active
transportation, reduced LOS for
cars.
More shade on trails and bus
stops.
Non-shaded areas and sidewalks
are a burn risk for kids (toys,
slides, etc.).
Water conservation should not be
focused just on residents.
More fuel reduction in WUI areas.
Continue tree canopy program.
More QR codes around town (like
parks) so people can get
connected to information.
Less black asphalt that raises heat,
more white concrete.
More sidewalk connectivity.
More spending on education on
water usage information.
Removed trees need to be
replanted in that area (not
elsewhere in the City).
Areas with lower tree canopy need
higher tree requirements.
More lawn alternative promotion,
not just SpokaneScape.
New Hillyard there are big oil tanks
that burp oil smells into homes,
cause air quality issues.
Make the things that have and
have not worked known; tell
residents about known issues.
More mail fliers of education, not
just online.
More education on fire wise and
fuel reduction programs the City is
already doing.
Install solar panels over parking
lots.
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Page | 4
AGENDA
[Page 65]
Trees:
o Require in new development
o Leave existing trees in new development
o Active City involvement in tree planting (don’t require residents to request
trees, ask them if they want trees)
Oversight of street trees to support maintenance and growth to ensure trees live
Swales
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Connect bicycle network and make e-bike traffic less dangerous.
Expand the transportation network for bike and pedestrian connectivity.
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received
1vote, Equity received 1 vote, Climate Pollution Reduction received 1 vote, Logistics received
1 vote, and Risk received 1 vote.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Prioritize policies with city action rather than informational or “encouraging” resident
action.
Improvement to tree canopy (increase oversight and assistance, reduction of water
costs to water trees, tree health support)
Page | 5
AGENDA
[Page 66]
Memo
Re:
District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 2 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 5,
2025 at Ferris High School. Approximately 40 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Don’t use broad terms in Comprehensive Plan
Levels of service, especially for fire
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Affordable Housing
Address vandalism to support
businesses
Concerned about gangs for both
housing and small businesses
Lack of pedestrian infrastructure
and transit
High insurance for homes in the
WUI, mitigate wilfire risk
Corporate rental ownership
Tree desert/heat island in certain
neighborhoods
Increase tree canopy
Codes that require solar cooling
Control rents
Increase bus routes
Create more pedestrian friendly
streets
Build roads before new
development
High housing costs
AGENDA
[Page 67]
Losing property insurance
City should work with the State on
housing costs and insurance loss
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Urban Agriculture:
o Preserve, no other use allowed.
Residential Low:
o Allow businesses catered toward people walking
o Allow neighborhood input on a project-by-project level for other uses
o Allow coffee shops, gathering spaces, and bookstores
o Develop incentives for neighborhood businesses
o Prioritize historic/adaptive reuse over new development (both commercial
and residential)
o Commercial and residential can coexist as long as the scale and auto vs
pedestrian uses match each other in intensity.
o Locate near centers and corridors and other high intensity uses.
Commercial:
o Zoning requirements for gas stations and convenience stores related to
sober living and other affordable housing services.
Centers and Corridors:
o Do not allow drive-thrus, gas stations or any other auto-oriented uses.
Open Space:
o Should include parks and natural open space.
o Preserve open space.
o Protect trees during development, including on private property.
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, one vote was cast for a middle option between Alternative 1 and Alternative
2, Alternative 2 received 6 votes, and Alternative 3 received 2 votes.
AGENDA
[Page 68]
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Direct growth to
Garland/Perry/Downtown/areas
already with growth and not within
neighborhoods with limited
parking and emergency access.
Direct growth away from mature
trees and rock formations.
Distributed housing and
transportation needed.
Alternative 2 & 3 should both focus
on TOD and increased affordable
housing.
Large subdivisions should have
traffic lights to exit to
accommodate surrounding
growth.
Duplexes built and sold as
duplexes are not selling/not
affordable; concerns over
affordable housing in alternatives.
Parking requirements should be 1
space per unit.
Need safe crossings to bus
stops/park and rides.
High intensity housing can be
isolating, community hubs are
needed.
Increase housing downtown; get
more people visiting downtown.
Locate mix-use along NS Corridor
interchanges.
Address Airway Heights growth
impact on access to water.
Concerns over Division traffic and
conflict of businesses, curb cuts.
Infrastructure needs to be in place
before continuing to allow new
development (Freya Lower South
Hill highlighted).
More mixed-uses everywhere; less
areas with single uses.
Locate employment and industrial
uses on edges of the city.
Provide/expect commercial uses to
pop up around employment.
Provide more attractions; things
for groups/teens to do together.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, participants had few locations they wanted mixed-uses to be located. However, MUTOD was identified for Market Street, North Monroe, and portions of Ruby. MU-3 was
identified on West Sunset Boulevard.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
MU-2 should be everywhere.
No neighborhood businesses, there is no parking.
AGENDA
[Page 69]
No Latah-Cannon Corridor plan; all the traffic, no plan.
No mixed use in neighborhoods, protect neighborhood from exploitive
development.
Want to see more intensity at arterials, then higher commercial, and finally
residential.
Want a transportation plan for Cliff-Cannon; there’s no future plan considering 195
and I-90 ramp.
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting street trees along Ruby and
Division, as well as downtown; improved bike connections north of Francis Avenue in the
northwest, in South Logan at Mission and Hamilton, near Spokane Community College, and
near Ray Street, Regal, and other areas in South Spokane; separate bike lanes at Wellesley
and Driscoll Boulevard, within Latah Valley, and in various locations near downtown and just
south of I-90 in the southwest; bus route improvements near Vinegar Flats and within Latah
Valley; bus shelters throughout Latah Valley and on Ray Street; speed management along
Grand Boulevard; and new and improved crosswalks throughout the southwest. Additional
improvements, largely in in the southwest, include emergency services, improving bridges,
new sidewalks, fixing of roads, lighting, and new intersection.
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Create trails that are more like dog
parks
Support engaged and active
citizenry for resiliency
Expand safe bike and walking to
grocery stores
Responsible and equitable
development
Increase density and make it
easier for residents to do that
themselves
More trees and shade along trails
Ban wood burning fireplaces
Create urban public garden inside
parks
Encourage TOD
Encourage safe streets for bikes
and pedestrians; protected bike
lanes, more crosswalks
Expand bike in infrastructure
More walkable neighborhoods (i.e.
29th and Grand area
Canon area lost lots of trees, not
replanted by new development
People drink PFAS and then it
moves through sewer pipes and
treatment
AGENDA
[Page 70]
Sewer infrastructure in Canon is
old and breaks often
Lack of parking becomes a safety
and resiliency issue
Incentivize more tree canopy in
lower areas but maintain aging
tree canopy (especially in aging
demographics)
Water quality of PFAS in mystic
falls/garden spring due to
development
More dense development so there
is less cross through traffic to
sprawling suburbs
Enable neighborhoods to create
more social capital and be able to
take action and help issues
Incentivize responsible
development
Solar on rooftops before green
spaces
Money, investment, and code is
very car focuses and needs to be
more holistic
Toolkit for tactical urbanism
(empower communities to
improve areas themselves)
Life flight should use major
corridors to reduce residential and
wildlife noise pollution
Expand historic preservation,
create culture like Canon
Fix challenging areas for biking
(hills make it impossible and
dangerous to bike, even with ebikes)
NSC will bring more car
infrastructure and needs to be
more resilient and multimodal
Development should not be in
neighborhoods
Maintain our strong tree canopies
Need more protected bike lanes
Extend existing bike lanes, don’t
just stop the bike lanes suddenly
Development should not remove
trees, plants, and Spokane’s
distinct environment
Rain retention facilities
requirements should be stronger
Bike lanes with multiple lines helps
enforce walking
Ensure social capital is created
during development
Green roofs
More walking paths
Stronger codes to maintain tree
canopy
Need to have an
acknowledgement of growth/our
limits
AGENDA
[Page 71]
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Recognize limits to growth.
Prioritize protection of mature trees and iconic basalt rocks.
The new infill law is destroying mature trees and neighborhoods.
No mixed-use growth in the middle of neighborhoods.
Bike infrastructure
Walkable neighborhoods
Public Transportation in Latah Valley
Protect trees
Require parking spaces for all units, change setbacks to 5-feet, change lots from 20
to 50 foot minimum.
Sponsor new windows for historic homes.
Convert unused city property to public pea patches.
Growth numbers should consider possibility of climate refugees.
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Plant more trees
More bike lanes in all communities
Community infrastructure built now to we have it when growth occurs
Sound walls along freeways to protect housing
Reducing pollution in low-income areas
Walkable neighborhoods for everyone
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 6
votes, Equity received 3 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 4 votes, Logistics
received 1 vote, and Risk received 2 votes.
Page | 6
AGENDA
[Page 72]
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Without resilience, we will have a hard time delivering on the other policies
Clear out underbrush in fire risk areas.
Inequitable impact e.g. when you add a historic district, you reduce the value of the
homes surrounding the historic district.
Ban wood burning fireplaces.
Tighten controls on vehicle emissions.
Stop consolidating poverty; spread out affordable housing outside of poverty-stricken
neighborhoods.
Balancing costs and benefits to ensure prospective business ventures aren’t too
impacts.
Stop allowing shelters in areas with no services.
Page | 7
AGENDA
[Page 73]
Memo
Re:
District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The District 3 Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 18,
2025 at Salk Middle School. Approximately 20 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
• For elderly and disabled residents,
• Accessibility (housing and public
walkable also means sittable
space)
• Context sensitive design
• Mixed-use housing in
standards, especially in historic
neighborhoods to make more
centers
“hubs” instead of strip malls
• Sidewalk safety (e.g. electric scoots
• More greenways and trails like
and conflicts with pedestrians)
Centennial; need north/south
• Require more design variety within
connections
new developments
• Protected bike lanes, not just
• Create quality and beautiful places
painted ones
to live
• Allow for more mixed use in
• Less dependence on vehicles
established neighborhoods
• Allow for or encourage local
• Allow for more walkable
services, restaurants, or grocery
neighborhoods
stores in neighborhoods
• Sidewalks in existing development,
• Organize road construction
not just new development
planning so that if a main
• Programs for homeless residents
north/south roadway is under
like jobs, including helping clean
construction, you wait on further
up neighborhoods
north/south projects
• Third spaces
AGENDA
[Page 74]
Increase pedestrian safety at
uncontrolled intersections on large
roads, especially one way roads
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Lack of low friction transit
Lack of public spaces free from oppression
Please always consider small business impact when considering taxes
Greater options in affordable housing (location, size, etc.)
Density transition, no high-rise next to single unit homes
Building getting torn down for parking lots or mall centers
Mixed use housing can balance both
Vacant lots/parking lots sitting unused
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Residential Low:
o Consider impacts of less on-site parking
o Allow small mixed uses (cafes, etc.) and embrace being an urban area
o Allow mixed-use spaces, community spaces, community gardens, parks, and
walkable third spaces.
o No gas stations
o Allow for small scale medical uses (e.g. dentist) near hospital district
o Need transition between low- and high-density areas
Residential High:
o Needs to be expanded into existing lower scale residential, such as near
transit or in close proximity to amenities
Commercial:
o Mixed use needs to be expanded
o Take advantage of vacant commercial areas to add businesses or apartments
Centers and Corridors:
AGENDA
[Page 75]
o No hostile architecture
o Locate throughout Division once NSC is complete and traffic reduces
Downtown:
o Allow taller buildings and bigger business spaces
Industrial:
o Encourage adaptive reuse of existing spaces
Open Space:
o Undeveloped parks with trails, not every park needs big grass fields
o Accessible open space
o Mountain biking
o 100% of the river should be public park
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 5 votes, and Alternative 3 received 1 vote.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
Development is currently
happening below bluff, create
transitional uses to reinvent the
area.
Alternative 2 plus downtown
revitalization preferred.
Allow Browne’s Additional uses
through the city/neighborhoods.
Alternative 2 improves already
existing sprawl in city limits,
Alternative 3 avoids sprawl.
Neighborhood hubs needed
throughout, create economic areas
in neighborhoods.
Alternative 2 has housing more
accessible to all parts of the city
and spread impacts.
Plan around future light rail.
Balanced alternative allows for
areas to grow and revitalize more.
Do not focus on downtown, people
do not visit as often as other parts
of the city.
To change behavior, give a better
alternative; carrot needed first.
Pedestrian only streets or golf
cart/scooter only streets needed.
Need easier access to bus routes
like Division.
AGENDA
[Page 76]
Downtown focus creates
opportunity for more housing and
revitalization/reuse of existing
buildings.
Alternative 2 preferred, but with
preservation of historic buildings,
revitalize or reuse buildings.
The investment downtown of
Alternative 3 is a good priority to
avoid businesses leaving.
Like the mixed uses in north
Spokane but want downtown
focus as well.
Housing does not fix homeless
problems, need other solutions
like centralized facilities.
Take advantage of areas already
changing – vacant areas, industries
that moved.
Downtown expansion plus the
connectedness along the streets
and transit lines.
Reuse abandoned commercial
buildings for housing.
Increase middle housing
everywhere.
Job growth is important; make
sure we are encouraging
industries and not just mixed-uses.
Like a multi-block approach to
intensities (like Alt 3 downtown)
over less depth along transit lines.
Downtown as a primary working
hub allows for investments to
make it a safe and appealing
destination.
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD along Hamilton, North Monroe,
and along the northernmost portion of Nevada Street; MU-1 between Northwest and
Balboa/South Indian Trail neighborhoods, on North Monroe, and near the Shadle Library on
Wellesley; MU-2 along Indian Trail Road; and MU-3 in the southwest corner of
Manito/Cannon Hill, within Audubon/Downriver, and in Northwest.
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting more street trees along Ruby
and Division, Browne’s Addition, and near Illinois Avenue; wider sidewalks on Division in
downtown; lighting on Grand and south of Wellesley; bus shelters along Division; increase
bus times near Government Way; better connected areas in Northwest and
Audubon/Downriver as well as just south of downtown; improved intersection at near Freya
and 5th Avenue; wayfinding near Maple/Walnut; and reduced speeds new Wellesley and
Driscoll Boulevard.
AGENDA
[Page 77]
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
There is no access from housing to river between TJ Meenach and Seven Mile.
Close some intersections along Driscoll at A and C streets, they are dangerous and
confusing.
Increased (bus?) access and frequency to airport.
Better “barriers” needed for separated bike lanes.
Browne’s Addition/Downtown need pedestrian and bike connection improvements
at Maple and 1st/Pacific/Riverside.
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Provide good resilient tree typers
that don’t cause damage to pipes.
Help connect homeowners with
getting weatherization like
insulation (both knowledge and
resources).
Discourage the purchasing of big
gas guzzling trucks, SUVs, etc.
Support the replacement of trees
when they need replanted
Make our neighborhoods more
beautiful and bring community
pride
Tree maintenance subsidies
Fire hazard mitigation for
homeowners
Ensure trees are watered, when
people quit watering their yards in
the summer, they also don’t water
the trees
Developers need to plant higher
age and mature trees
Equal investment opportunities
into neighborhoods
Work with local areas, including
Idaho, to maintain/preserve
climate
Use more fire safe housing
material in new developments
Targeted partnerships to get
better air filters for the community
More signage about issues like
heat islands, where/when they are
happening
Take a position as a city to go
solar, provide information to
connect to contractors or best
products
More coverage of trees throughout
Spokane
Need formal river access for noncar residents between TJ Meenach
and 7-Mile
More trail and native preservation
little parks
Look at housing ages to determine
places to target aging tree
replacement
Quit encourage people to remove
yards, instead of drought tolerant,
most people are landscaping with
rock and amplifying the problem.
Do more that just Avista providing
energy efficiency
AGENDA
[Page 78]
Urban re-forestation tree planting
subsidies
Raise subsidy help by a sliding
scale
Window upgrade help to reduce
energy cost
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
No additional power to AI facilities,
it will create more pollution
More bus only lanes to make
public transit faster, cheaper, and
quicker
SpokaneScape: incentive model is
helpful, but businesses are exempt
More improvements to bike
infrastructure and consistent
connectivity throughout
neighborhoods
Tree and native landscaping
Better park and transit accessibility
for walkable neighborhoods
Tree canopy
Promotion of local community
solution for addressing climate
Address financial barriers
Low/zero friction public transit
Shade
Intersection of natural and built
environment
Mental and physical health
Low-cost improvements to support
biking
Education around benefits of tree
canopy
Incentivize tree planting on the
north side of the city
Hold businesses more accountable
Trees as physical barriers for bike
lanes to improve safety
Greenhouse gas emissions related
to “dead internet”
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
Support bicycle use and protected
bike lanes
Fruit and nut trees in public
spaces, not ornamental fruit trees
Protected bike lanes and bus only
lanes
Supporting walkable
neighborhoods for community
development
Fund solar panel
Heat mitigation in neighborhoods,
especially East Central
AGENDA
[Page 79]
City should provide funding
opportunities for climate change
mitigation activities
Supporting pedestrian
transportation
Leaf removal should happen in
West Central, equal access to
resource
More advertising for Spokanopy
and SpokaneScape
Safer roads
Support equity in neighborhoods
impacted by freeways through
noise barriers, reinvestment
without gentrifying
More bus rapid transit throughout
the city
Stop watering public spaces that
aren’t parks
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 8
votes, Equity received 5 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 7 votes, Logistics
received 5 votes, and Risk received 1 vote.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Legislative control to create solutions
How to reduce homelessness/outdoor sleeping to make people less vulnerable
Build equity into each criterion
AGENDA
[Page 80]
Memo
Re:
Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop
The Citywide Future Growth and Guiding Policies Community Workshop occurred on November 19,
2025 at the Central Library. Approximately 35 community members attended. Feedback received
at each station activity is summarized below. A full engagement summary of the workshop series will
be developed at a later date.
Station 1: Guiding Policies
Community members were asked to write down what topics they want to make sure are
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to help identify potential gaps in the proposed
amendments:
Art districts
Neighborhoods being distinct
Overnight daycares
Spark House
Address land speculation
Shopping District (Monroe,
Garland)
Indoor swimming pools for the
winter
Trails
Action plan for incentivizing
affordable, dense housing
Daycare centers
Conservation/migration corridors
to connect to County corridors
Promoting outdoor activities in the
winter e.g. park use in the winter,
SCC pool
Addressing employment and job
creation
Ensuring adequate levels of
transportation/transit
opportunities to reduce single
occupancy vehicles
Aim to make all playgrounds and
parks accessible
Natural playgrounds
Shoreline master planning
Station 2: Displacement
After being told about three different types of displacement (physical, economic, and
cultural), community members were asked what causes to housing and small business
AGENDA
[Page 81]
displacement are they most concerned about. Additionally, how could the City address
them?
The comments included:
Faster permit processing
City should be involved in public housing development
High housing costs are a concern
Mobile home park developments being replaced by affordable multi-family housing
Business displacement due to neighborhood perception of safety
Lack of housing inventory to keep up with population increases
Station 3: Land Use Schema
Community members were asked to provide feedback on proposed land use designations
to implement the future growth of the Spokane. Specifically, they were asked what uses
should be allowed in the different land uses and were should the land use be located.
Participants reflected on the following land uses:
Urban Agriculture:
o Allow flower growers, small vegetable and fruit farmers market-type food
production
o Locate to avoid impacts of potential pesticides
Residential Low:
o Human-scale and human serving design
o Allow parking
o Allow community gardens and indoor community pools
Residential High:
o Accessible housing (no stairs)
Centers and Corridors:
o Allow multi-family as well as trade/live work makerspaces
o Do not allow drive throughs
Institutional:
o Incentives apartments
o Community pools
Open Space:
o Allow indoor community pools
o Provide enough parks/trails so those in dense areas/apartments have a
place to go outside
AGENDA
[Page 82]
Station 4: Growth Alternatives
Community members were presented with the three Growth Alternatives being evaluated
as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 (Stay the Course)
represents the current growth strategy. To address recent state legislation, Alternative 2
(Distributed and Balanced) and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs) were developed
out of earlier visioning and scoping engagement. After reviewing the proposed maps and a
snapshot of environmental impact evaluation comparisons between the three alternatives,
community members were asked to vote on their preferred growth strategy. Alternative 1
received 0 votes, Alternative 2 received 9 votes, and Alternative 3 received 3 votes.
Participants who did not fully prefer one alternative over another, as well as those who did
make a selected, were asked to identify their likes and dislikes of potential growth options,
as well as other considerations for future growth. Those comments included:
North/South and East/West
connection in Alternative 2 is a
positive
Diversity of locations is positive for
clients/investors; “diversity of
options”
Use land along Government
Way/West Hills
Alt 2 creates bridge between
neighborhoods
Protect agricultural lands;
encourage regenerative
agricultural practices
Like NW mixed use proposal
East/West supported in Alt 2 along
Wellesley and Francis
Alt 3 plus Wellesley, E/W
connection
Like mixed use along NW
Boulevard in Alt 2
Alter 2 favors more positive
distribution but also add corner
stores
Neither alternative focus on
connecting smaller areas
Encourage arts through home
occupation
Alternative 2 needs the medical
focus and should include better
transit for shift work for medical
staff
Watch out for community
displacement in West
Center/Broadway
Push heavy industrial outside of
city limits
Health impact to neighborhoods
should be analyzed
Add home occupation for mix of
jobs/uses
Need traffic calming at Broadway
in West Central
Ensure professional buildings are
also part of mixed-use areas, not
just retail/food
For industrial areas where
residential areas can be allowed,
expand the tree canopy
Need to address transportation
More mixed-use and corner stores
with pedestrian emphasis
Need code enforcement for
parking in Cannon
Maintain Center and Corridors
AGENDA
[Page 83]
Station 5: Map Your Future Spokane – Mixed-Uses
Through a mapping exercise where different color pins represented different types of mixed-use designations, community members were asked to identify where they thought different
sizes and scales of mixed-use development should be located throughout the City. In
general, respondents wanted respondents wanted MU-TOD near the Shadle Library on
Wellesley, along Market Street in Hillyard, on North Monroe, along Mission, in parts of
downtown and Cliff-Cannon, and in areas on 29th; MU-1in north Five Mile Prairie, in parts of
Audubon/Downriver and West Central, and downtown; MU-2 in Shiloh Hills, Northwest, and
North Hill and in areas along 29th; and MU-3 in multiple areas spread out through Comstock,
Latah/Hangman, Lincoln Height, East Central, Cliff-Cannon, Manito/Cannon Hill, Chief Garry,
Audubon/Downriver, Bemiss, and Whitman.
In addition to pin placement, addition comments included:
No more drive throughs
Need parks and trails in Hillyard
Design for less disruption in displacement
Cannon’s Addition concern over privacy with height differences
Cannon’s Addition needs transportation management
More health and transportation access in West Central
Trades academy
24-hour day care
Designated business district/center/corridor down east Broadway of West Central
Trade and maker spaces in West Central
“Sparkhouse” at McKinley School, various locations throughout City
Create protections against displacement in Chief Garry around City Line stopes,
including increasing resources for community
Increase Pedestrian/Bike Infrastructure along Northwest Boulevard
Station 6: Map Your Future Spokane - Transportation
Through a mapping exercise that included stickers that indicated preferred development
types and street upgrades, community members were asked to identify what type of street
improvements and destinations they want to see along major transit stops throughout
Spokane. In general, community members indicated wanting increase bus access in
downtown, along Grand Boulevard, out towards the airport, and near Northwest Boulevard;
bus shelters on Wellesley in West Central; downtown wayfinding, seating along Wellesley,
Northwest Boulevard, Division, Market, Grand Boulevard, and Regal; improved or new
crosswalks on Northwest Boulevard and near Monroe Street, as well as near Trent Avenue
and on Francis; intersections throughout northwest Spokane; street trees in East Center and
downtown; and greater and safer bike connectivity along Division, between Division and
Monroe, and on Grand.
AGENDA
[Page 84]
In addition to sticker placement, addition comments included:
On Grand Boulevard from 9th to
29th, add center turn lane, remove
parking, and add bike lanes.
Increase separated protected bike
connectivity north/south away
from Centennial Trail
Double decker bus cut frequency
of the 6, not frequent enough
Slow down one-way couplets or
remove them
No in-town highways
Potential for strong transit
connectivity with Valley-BRT or
light rail on Sprague Avenue
Add pedestrian mall/mid lane
island to Main Street
Create school streets and shared
streets
Finish the envisioned boulevard
plan for Regal Steet through
Southgate District Center
On Washington, Howard, and Post
flip bike lane and parking
Push Monroe Road Diet down to
Kendall Yards
Recommended bus routes,
including to natural areas like Mt.
Spokane, Little Spokane River, and
Bowl and Pitcher
Slow default neighborhood speeds
to 20 MPH
Climate town videos like park(ing)
day
Grand should have a different type
of arterial status
Micromobility designated
spaces/use for daylighting off
sidewalk parking
Blue Moon Nursery will sell and
develop
Develop planned pedestrian
natural surface trail along Latah
Creek
Make a one hour bus loop down to
Latah through Cliff-Cannon
Pedestrian path buried in park
development
Trail easement at 11th Ave and
bridge
Station 7: Planning for Climate
Community members were asked to identify what actions they want the City of Spokane to
take to support local climate resiliency. Those comments included:
Climate resilience education
End wood burning fireplaces
Real penalties for water use abuse
Park and ride/multimodal transportation system
Incentivize public transit use
Encourage water conservation and restrict water use in dry months
Extreme weather even shelters
Adon’t rely on air conditioners as they just displace heat, use good design
AGENDA
[Page 85]
Increase accessibility of recycling and composting
Stop logging forests to make room for development, planting street trees does not
replace natural forests
Address growth at the edge of the UGA
Stop over building lots and not leaving space for trees
Park and ride as entry way into public transit use
Station 8: Developing Climate Policies
In order to help develop climate and resiliency policies, community members were
presented with top themes heard throughout the earlier phase of climate planning
engagement. With those in mind, participants were then asked to identify any other topics
of importance:
Indoor spaces to escape to during weather extremes
Water conservation
More resources directed to conservation programs
Street trees, including maintenance
Food security
Allow fruit trees near street/sidewalks
City should partner with property owners to maintain trees to offset costs
Support creation of more efficient building construction
Restrict wood burning fireplaces to improve air quality
Station 9: Environmental Justice
Community members were presented with the definition and ways to assess environmental
justice, in order to support state required policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Participants were then asked to provide ideas on how the City of Spokane can support
environmental justice:
• Low-income renters and homeowners can’t easily afford maintenance of
sidewalks/trees/bioswales, but these improve their environment; city needs to
support neighborhoods by maintaining these elements
• Reduce light pollution
• Protecting elders from heat impacts through tree canopy and programs to reduce
costs for AC units
• Land bridge for wildlife crossing (Thorpe and 195); don’t just plan for humans
• Increase public indoor pools for year-round use for social and health benefits for
kids and elderly
• Amenities like parks and other public places need to be designed to allow
vulnerable populations to access during high temperatures
AGENDA
[Page 86]
Station 10: Prioritizing Climate Policies
In addition to identifying potential climate and resiliency policies, the climate planning effort
will include a prioritization process. Community members were asked to identify the top
criteria they believed should be weighted more heavily than others. Resilience received 6
votes, Equity received 7 votes, Climate Pollution Reduction received 3 votes, Logistics
received 1 vote, and Risk received 0 votes.
Community members there then asked to identify any other criteria that should be
considered:
Emphasize natural environment as a component of resilience criteria
Page | 7
AGENDA
[Page 87]
Welcome!
The City of Spokane is working on a periodic update to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan as required by the State’s Growth
Management Act (GMA). This “periodic update” ensures the plan
aligns with any changes to state law. The last periodic update
was completed in 2017. Since then, the State has added new
requirements, especially around climate and housing. Due in
June 2026, the periodic update will identify policies and future
regulations to guide the next 20 years of our city.
What We’re Planning For
Population
Based on growth forecasts for Spokane County, the City of Spokane is
expected to gain at least 23,357 new residents between 2023 and
2046, bringing the City’s total population to just over 256,000.
23,357
projected new residents by 2046
Housing Needs
As part of the periodic update, the City of Spokane is seeking to better
understand how to support existing housing while addressing future
housing needs.
Per state requirements and County allocations, the City of Spokane
is expected to need 22,359 additional permanent housing units
between 2020 and 2046. 13,415 of those units are to accommodate new
residents, while the remaining units are intended to meet past housing
underproduction needs. In addition to a total number of housing units,
the City of Spokane is also required to plan for housing by affordability
22,359
additional permanent housing units
needed between 2020 and 2046
bracket.
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org
AGENDA
[Page 88]
Environmental Impact Statement
Background
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 process, the City
of Spokane is developing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), an informational document that
provides the City, public, Tribes, and agencies with
environmental information to be considered in the
decision-making process.
An EIS is required under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) for larger projects, such as significant
updates to Comprehensive Plans. An EIS describes
potential environmental impacts, reasonable
alternatives, and ways to avoid or minimize negative
impacts that could result from implementation of
policies, informing the Comprehensive Plan Periodic
Update.
Draft EIS
The Draft EIS presents three alternatives to test
different growth patterns and policies. The City of
Spokane will then create a “preferred alternative”
based on public input and the Draft EIS evaluation of
the range of the alternatives.
The preferred alternative may include any features
of the studied alternatives, including a combination
of various elements from all of the alternatives. The
Final EIS
After public feedback and the selection of a
preferred alternative, a Final Environmental Impact
Statement will be written that analyzes the chosen
path forward.
The Final EIS will also respond to comments received
on the Draft EIS.
preferred alternative will be evaluated in the Final EIS.
EIS Topics
Earth, water quality, and water
resources
Relationship to plans, policies,
and regulations
Air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions
Transportation, including
multiple modes and city and
state facilities
Plants and animals, including
critical areas and habitat
Public services: police, fire and
emergency medical services,
parks, schools, libraries, solid
waste
Land use patterns and urban
form, including historic and
cultural resources
Population, employment, and
housing
Utilities: power, water,
wastewater, and stormwater
AGENDA
[Page 89]
Growth Alternatives
Legend
Growth Intensity
(Alternative 1)
Low
Alternative 1
Stay the Course
The City is studying three alternatives in the Draft EIS.
Each alternative describes different growth strategies.
Alternative 2
Distributed and Balanced
Alternative 3
Center City and Regional Hubs
Moderate
Moderate-High
High
Growth Intensity
(Alternatives 2 and 3)
High Density
Housing
Moderate
Density Housing
Mixed Use /
Commercial
Employment/
Industrial Light
Employment/
Industrial Heavy
High Density Housing
Moderate Density Housing
Mixed Use / Commercial
Employment/
Industrial Light
Employment/
Industrial Heavy
AGENDA
[Page 90]
Alternatives Comparison (Preliminary)
This board shares preliminary environmental impact evaluation results on the natural
There will be a public comment opportunity to weigh in on the alternatives and the
and built environment. Each table has a table or “report card” with comparison symbols.
Draft EIS evaluation. That will help the City of Spokane create a Preferred Alternative
Impacts may be greater or lesser, or there can be potential beneficial impacts/mitigation
that mixes and matches alternative features and adds mitigation measures that can
measures. The results may change with the completion of the Draft EIS.
reduce impacts on the natural and built environment.
Report Card - Built Environment
Objectives
OBJECTIVES
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
x
ı+
ı+
Meet Periodic Update Requirements
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
/
/
/
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form
Land use and Urban Form compatibility: Changes
Accommodate Growth: Housing at All
in use type between adjacent areas and potential
Affordability Levels
ı
ı+
ı+
Accommodate Growth: Jobs
ı
ı
ı+
Clarify the Plan
x
ı+
ı+
Simplify the Plan and Codes
x
ı+
ı+
Protect Critical Areas
ı
ı+
ı+
Fast-Track Desired Growth
x
ı+
ı+
Alignment with Vision Statement
x
ı+
ı+
incompatibility.
Environmental Justice: Increased exposure of
overburdened populations to light or noise pollution,
environmental hazards, or urban heat island effects
Population, Employment, and Housing
Capacity for Housing and Population Targets
Housing Variety and Affordability
Implementation of Housing Action Plan
Growth in Housing Displacement Risk Areas /
Increased Housing Supply that Reduces Economic
Displacement Pressure
Job types and quantity and ability to advance City and
Ability to Meet Objectives
x Less
More
regional economic development strategies
ı+ Most
Commercial business economic displacement
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Report Card - Natural Environment
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ALT. 1
Public Services
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
services, schools, parks, libraries, and solid waste
Earth, water quality, and water resources: Potential for
Schools – Spokane School District
increased pollution and potential for increased rainfall
runoff flows based on housing density distribution.
Schools – Mead School District
Plants and animals: Potential for habitat conversion, or loss
Environmental Justice – Growth in Areas with Health
of habitat connectivity
and Social Disparities and Greater Service Demand
Center City
Utilities
Northwest
Power, Water, Wastewater Demand
Northeast
Power, Water, Wastewater Infrastructure Upgrades
South
Stormwater Generation
West Plains
Strength of Mitigation Potential – Plan and Code
Strength of Mitigation – Plan and Code Updates.
Adverse Impacts
Less Impacts
Citywide demand for police, fire/emergency medical
-
Updates
-
Potential Beneficial Impacts/Mitigation
More Impacts
Most Impacts
- Neutral Impacts
Moderately Positive
Positive
Your Ideas
What features of the different growth options do you like best? What could be improved?
AGENDA
[Page 91]
Map Your Future Spokane Transportation!
What type of street improvements and
destinations do you want to see near transit
throughout Spokane?
Help us by using these stickers to indicate
your preferences for development types and
street upgrades near major transit stops.
What is Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD)?
Transit-Oriented Development, or TOD, concentrates a diversity of land
uses within easy walking, bicycling, and rolling distance of high-performance
transit lines. Key characteristics of TOD include active street frontages
with housing, shopping, employment opportunities near transit stations.
These characteristics enhance neighborhood access to resources and
transportation options, supporting local economic growth and resiliency.
AGENDA
[Page 92]
Map Your Future
Spokane!
Earlier community feedback indicated a desire for more
mixed-uses throughout Spokane.
Where should different sizes and scales of mixed-use
development be located throughout the City?
MU-TOD
MU-1
MU-2
0
MU-3
2
4 miles
MU-TOD
MU-1
MU-2
MU-3
Transit-Oriented
Maximum Flexibility
Small Neighborhood Scale
Residential Mixed-Use
• Targeted towards vicinity of major transit
stops (within 1/4 mile).
• Tallest heights (150’).
• Avoids vehicle-serving uses (no drivethrus, commercial parking lots, etc.).
• No mini-storage
• Greatest provisions for people walking,
bicycling, or rolling with assistive devices
to access transit.
• “Base” type for Centers and Corridors.
• Smaller scale and lower intensity than
MU-1 zone.
• Smallest scale and intensity, targeted towards
neighborhood serving uses.
• Taller heights (90’).
• High amount of land use flexibility, but no
self storage
• Allow industrial zones where uses are
currently industrial.
• Moderate heights (75’).
• Can be placed both inside Centers and in
residential neighborhoods (limits on driveway
spacing, street access)
• Maximum amount of land use flexibility.
• Greatest amount of accommodation for
people driving (drive-thrus permitted).
• Entirely residential buildings allowed.
• Moderate support for people driving, but
no drive-thrus on storefront streets
• Replaces some areas currently zoned
Neighborhood Retail.
• Heights similar to neighborhoods (40’).
• Large-scale retail/services allowed but only in
structures that also provide residential units.
• Focused on accommodating people walking,
bicycling, rolling with assistive devices, and
accessing transit.
AGENDA
[Page 93]
Displacement
As part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic Update, the
City of Spokane has completed analysis to understand
displacement risk as we grow. As directed by recent
state legislation (HB 1220), the City is working to
establish anti-displacement policies.
Common anti-displacement policies include
inclusionary zoning, tenant protections, public/private
partnerships, tax incentives, community land banks,
and development agreements.
Your Ideas
What causes to housing and
small business displacement are
you most concerned about? How
could the City address them?
There are three
primary types of
displacement:
• Physical displacement, which occurs when
a project — such as building demolition,
renovation, or infrastructure — creates such
adverse conditions that a resident can no
longer physically stay in their unit.
• Economic displacement, which occurs when
increasing housing costs create pressure,
forcing a household or business to move to a
less expensive location.
• Cultural displacement, which occurs
when changes render a neighborhood quite
different, as many cultural institutions leave,
creating a sense of isolation for long-term
residents.
(Source: MRSC)
Scan here
More information about the displacement
analysis, as well as racially disparate impacts,
can be found at the Housing Needs webpage
AGENDA
[Page 94]
What Can Be Built Where?
What is Land Use?
Provide feedback on proposed land
Land use is essentially what kinds of uses can be built where. It
guides which uses are compatible in different parts of the City while
use designations that will implement
the future growth of our city.
ensuring the whole City has the right mix of residential, commercial,
What uses should be allowed and
where?
use will allow mostly manufacturing or warehouses. Each land use
and industrial uses needed to support a thriving city and economy.
For example, an area designated for “mixed use” can have an office, a
restaurant, or living units on the same street, while an industrial land
allows different zoning categories within it. Zoning determines the
rules and regulations that apply for uses and development for each
property.
Land use type
What uses should
or should not be
allowed?
Where should the
land use be or not be
located?
Urban Agriculture
Low intensity residential with agricultural uses
Intended for small portions of the City already with agricultural
operations
Residential Low
Single-unit homes and middle housing
Small scale businesses and other public-serving uses allowed
Residential High
Middle housing and taller/wider buildings with more units
Larger commercial uses than Residential Low
Commercial
Non-residential uses for living, working, and shopping
Mixed-uses and multi-unit residential in some areas
Centers & Corridors
Core or “heart” of each Center or Corridor
Other designations will likely be mixed in and around the core area
Institutional
More intense residential and commercial uses to support colleges,
medical centers, and other institutions
Downtown
Taller buildings and higher density
Range of uses
Industrial
Range of industrial uses including light industrial like maker spaces
and rapid prototyping
Open Space
Active parks and open space protection in some areas
AGENDA
[Page 95]
Chapter Review
Non-Technical Chapters Available for Public Comment
While there are many studies and projects in progress that will inform Comprehensive Plan
updates through PlanSpokane 2046, a big part of any periodic update is a review and assessment
of the many existing goals and policies. To this end, the City is undertaking a review of the
current Comprehensive Plan, known as the Chapter Review process. Edits to the Community,
Environment, and How We Grow Chapters have been made based on legislative requirements,
direction from the Spokane Plan Commission, and community engagement.
All comments and recommendations on the non-technical chapters
can be sent to PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org.
We encourage the public to include the Chapter name and Goal/Policy number(s) as applicable.
Community
Chapters
NON-TECHNICAL CHAPTERS
+ Climate
Environment
Chapters
+ Climate
*
“How We Grow”
Chapters
+ Climate
Technical
Chapters
+ Climate
Climate will be addressed throughout the update.
*Per state regulations, Shorelines is not due to be updated until 2031.
Learn more at the Chapter Review webpage
AGENDA
[Page 96]
Guiding Policies
As part of the Chapter Review process, seven nontechnical chapters have been reviewed and updated
to meet state legislative requirements, recent
plans and studies, direction from the Spokane Plan
Commission, and ongoing community engagement.
These chapters are now out for public comment,
with additional changes to each chapter are likely
to occur as public feedback is collected, additional
analysis is conducted, and a preferred alternative is
selected for the final Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Report cards summarizing the current
edits to the non-technical chapters
indicate how many new, removed, or
changed policies are in each chapter.
Learn more at PlanSpokane.org.
Your Ideas
As the chapters of the draft
Comprehensive Plan continue
to evolve based on community
feedback, what topics do you want to
make sure are addressed?
AGENDA
[Page 97]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 98]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 99]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 100]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 101]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 102]
City of Spokane climate planning is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate
Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting
cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving
public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.
AGENDA
[Page 103]
Accommodating Affordable Housing
in the City of Spokane, Washington
a requirement of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.70)
June, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 104]
AGENDA
[Page 105]
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................i
I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Report Preparation........................................................................................................................... 1
III. Defined Terms................................................................................................................................... 2
IV. Housing Affordability Brackets........................................................................................................ 2
V. The Housing Allocation Planning Tool............................................................................................ 4
• A Note On Housing Versus Population Growth........................................................... 5
• A Note On Housing Affordability Brackets and Grouping.......................................... 7
VI. Determining Affordability Bracket by Geographic Location....................................................... 7
Using Zoning to Inform Housing Affordability............................................................. 7
Sources for Housing Affordability for Rentals and Purchases.................................. 8
Rent/Purchase Price by Affordability Bracket.............................................................. 9
Determining Housing Tenure....................................................................................... 14
VII. Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket......................................................................................... 14
• Special Cases in the Land Capacity Analysis.............................................................. 16
VIII. Housing Unit Development Since 20200..................................................................................... 16
IX. RESULTS: Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket........................................................ 17
APPENDIX A: Housing Allocation Planning Tool Documentation...................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B: Assembled Affordability by SubArea from Public Market Data Sources.................. B-1
AGENDA
[Page 106]
Figures
Figure 1:
Final Results—City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability.................................. i
Figure 2:
Income Brackets in Spokane County........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3:
Utility Allowances by Unit Type and Number of Bedrooms, Spokane County..................... 4
Figure 4:
Rent/Mortgage Payment Limits in Spokane County................................................................. 4
Figure 5:
Countywide Housing Growth Allocation–Cities Included......................................................... 5
Figure 6:
City of Spokane Housing Growth Allocation (2020 to 2046).................................................... 5
Figure 7:
City of Spokane New Housing Need by Household Income (2020 to 2046)......................... 6
Figure 8:
Zoning Classified by Housing Type and Maximum Density..................................................... 8
Figure 9:
Process for Calculating Income from Median Home Price....................................................10
Figure 10: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Apartments.com)...........................................11
Figure 11: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Rentcafe.com)................................................11
Figure 12: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Zillow.com)........................................12
Figure 13: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Redfin.com).......................................12
Figure 14
Assumed Affordability by Location–Rentals and Purchases..................................................13
Figure 15
Percent of Rented Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)...........................................15
Figure 16
Percent of Owned Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)...........................................15
Figure 17
Example Affordability Calculation–LCA to Affordability Bracket...........................................16
Figure 18
Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability.................................17
AGENDA
[Page 107]
Executive Summary
The State of Washington has adopted new
legislation that requires communities like
Spokane to ensure they can accommodate
needed housing in various affordability brackets
when updating their Comprehensive Plans. As
the City of Spokane is undertaking the next mandated Periodic Update to its Comprehensive
Plan, the City must consider growth for the next
twenty years. Sufficient capacity must exist in the
City to accommodate housing development in
these brackets.
The City has analyzed its housing unit capacity already as part of the adopted Land Capacity
Analysis (LCA) for the City of Spokane. This report
expands upon the findings of the LCA in order to
differentiate the available land capacity by
affordability bracket.
Affordability in Spokane is established by a
percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI), set
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Currently, the City of Spokane exhibits a median three-person family income of
$90,720 per year, through which the City can determine the various affordability brackets as follows:
• 0-80% AMI = $0 and $72,600
• 80-120% AMI = $72,601 and $108,864
• 120+% AMI = more than $108,864
To determine where in the City units might
be affordable for these incomes, the analysis
used publicly available commercial price data
from Zillow.com, Redfin.com, Rentcafe.com, and
Apartments.com. Tenure information from the
American Communities Survey (ACS) was then
used to determine what proportion of units in a
given part of the city might be rented or owned.
By comparing the unit capacity in the LCA against
the affordability information from the webbased sources and the tenure (rent vs. own) data
from the ACS, the City has determined which
units of capacity in the LCA are expected to fall
within one of the three affordability brackets.
By applying the analysis outlined in this report, the City determined that even though there
currently exists sufficient land capacity for
33,000+ units, the City cannot likely accommodate the needed units in the most affordable category, 0-80% AMI. The specific number of units in
each category the City can accommodate is
shown in Figure 1 below.
Per the Washington Department of Commerce guidance on the subject, the City must
now contemplate certain amendments to development strategies, code requirements, and policy towards raising the number of 0-80%AMI
units the City can accommodate in the next
twenty years. What those amendments might be
will be a topic of the upcoming Environmental
Impact Statement and Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
Figure 1: Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability
0-80%AMI Units
80-120%AMI Units
120+%AMI Units
Need (Commerce HAPT, 2020-2046)
15,347
2,588
4,424
Units Completed (2020-2024)
1,328
507
978
Capacity for Additional Growth (2025-2046)
9,654
8,036
12,475
Comparison RESULT
-4,365
5,955
9,029
Source: New Units Needed = Department of Commerce Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT). Units Already Built: City of Spokane, Acella Data 2021 to 2024. Capacity for Additional
Growth = Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025.
Notes: RESULTS row represents the following calculation: (Units Already Built + Remaining Capacity) - New Units Needed. A negative number denotes a lack of sufficient capacity in that
affordability bracket to accommodate the need identified by the State.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page i
AGENDA
[Page 108]
I.
Introduction
In 2021 the Washington State Legislature passed new legislation seeking to
remedy the State’s ongoing housing crisis. Described as a bill “supporting emergency
shelters and housing through local planning and development regulations,” House Bill
1220 (HB1220) was passed on April 14, 2021. Among other changes, HB1220
expanded the requirement for Cities and Counties planning under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) to plan for and accommodate housing within their borders
when conducting major updates to their comprehensive plan.
Prior to HB1220, Cities and Counties were only required to quantify and
accommodate their total 20-year housing unit need. HB1220 expanded that
requirement, calling on jurisdictions to consider and plan for housing units broken
down by various affordability brackets, based on Area Median Income (AMI).
Accordingly, the Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) provided the
Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT) and various guidance documents to help
jurisdictions meet the new requirements.
The following analysis conforms largely to the guidance provided by Commerce,
primarily Commerce publications Establishing Housing Targets for your Community
(Book 1) and Guidance for Updating your Housing Element (Book 2). While HB1220
also included the requirement that the City consider racially disparate impacts and
displacement, those topics will be addressed in a separate study underway by the City
of Spokane and are not explored in detail here. Additionally, HB1220 requires that City
quantify their ability to accommodate emergency housing—a topic which will be
addressed in a separate report from this one.
II.
Report Preparation
The following report was prepared by the Planning & Economic Development
department at the City of Spokane, utilizing the following staff:
Project Manager & Chief Analyst: Kevin Freibott, Senior Planner
Planning Director: Spencer Gardner, AICP
Deputy Planning Director: Tirrell Black, AICP
Economic Development: Amanda Beck, Planner II
This report is a follow-up to the City’s Land Capacity Analysis (LCA), adopted earlier
in 2025. Readers are referred to that document for greater detail as to the available
lands within the City and the development potential therein.
Page 1 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 109]
III.
Defined Terms
Prior to discussing the housing allocation and the City’s capacity to accommodate
those units, it’s important to understand several key terms used by Commerce, the
HAPT, and mentioned in GMA and HB1220. Those terms are as follows:
Area Median Income (AMI): The HAPT describes housing affordability by AMI,
specifically as a percentage of the Spokane County AMI. AMI is established by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
is updated annually for the use of housing providers and local government.
HUD sets the AMI for the entire Spokane metropolitan area, not for cities
specifically. For financial year 2025, HUD states the AMI for the Spokane area
is $100,800. Commensurately, a household making $100,800 annually in
Spokane would be a 100%AMI household. Conversely, a household with an
annual income of $50,400 would be in the 50%AMI bracket.
Permanent Housing:
Permanent housing units provide permanent
residence, whether or not those units are provided along with supporting
services. A housing unit can be any type of unit, be it a standalone house,
apartment, condo, middle housing, or some other type of housing. For the
purposes of this analysis, group housing is not considered as part of the
permanent housing number, commensurate with HB1220 requirements.
Permanently Supportive Housing (PSH): PSH units are subsidized housing
units with no limit on the length of stay, prioritizing housing for people who
require comprehensive support services to retain tenancy. Generally, PSH is
paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person
living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health
condition who either was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk
of homelessness prior to moving into housing. Simplified, PSH provides both
housing and support to help prevent those in PSH from entering or returning
to homelessness. PSH is quantified in the HAPT by unit.
IV.
Housing Affordability Brackets
The analysis required by HB1220 and GMA calls for the City to quantify and
account for new housing in several affordability ranges, or brackets, based on AMI.
The brackets are based on AMI, set by HUD, and represent a range of household
incomes in the extremely-low-, very-low-, low-, and moderate-income ranges. Also
included are higher incomes greater than the AMI, such as 120% AMI, but legislation
has fewer requirements for planning for these housing types.
By calculating income as a percentage of AMI, the range of household incomes in
each bracket can be determined. This is complicated somewhat by the fact that AMI
changes by household size, rising as the number of people in the household rises.
While most agencies and jurisdictions rely on the 4-person number, Commerce allows
for jurisdictions to make adjustments according to local average household size.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 2 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 110]
The following table (Figure 2) provides the current AMI brackets, based on the
region’s median family income of $100,800. The table includes both the 3-person
income limits and the 4-person income limits. While 4-person family limits are most
often cited when discussing AMI, the current average household size in the City of
Spokane is closer to 3-persons1. Per Commerce Guidance, when this is true the
jurisdiction can consider home affordability by using the 3-person limit instead2.
Accordingly, the analysis in this report will do so.
Figure 2: Income Brackets in Spokane County (2025)
Affordability Bracket
Extremely Low Income
%AMI
0-30% AMI
3-Person Family
Income Range (Annual)
$0 - $27,250
4-Person Family
Income Range (Annual)
$0 - $30,240
Very Low-Income
30-50% AMI
$27,251 - $45,400
$30,241 - $50,400
Low Income
50-80% AMI
$45,401 - $72,600
$50,401 - $80,640
Moderate Income
80-100% AMI
$72,601 - $90,720
$80,641 - $100,800
High Income
100-120% AMI
$90,721 - $108,864
$100,801 - $120,960
Highest Income
120% + AMI
$108,865 and up
$120,961 and up
Source: 2025 Income Limits Documentation System, United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Retrieved online at www.huduser.gov.
Notes: Calculations of income range, maximum annual housing cost, and maximum monthly housing cost made by City staff from HUD income limits.
The Commerce guidance directs Jurisdictions towards assuming that a household
should expect 30 percent of its income to go towards housing costs. Incidentally, this
is the threshold for “cost burdened” households used by the State and most local
jurisdictions. Those households that pay more than 30 percent of their monthly
income towards housing costs are considered “cost burdened.”
In order to analyze the relationship between rents in the City of Spokane and the
income brackets offered by AMI, first the appropriate maximum monthly housing cost
for each bracket must be calculated. Converting annual income to determine what
comprises 30 percent of the monthly income requires a simple calculation:
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost = Annual Income / 12 * 0.30
However, an additional calculation must be made because housing cost, when
considered by Commerce and the state, includes monthly utility costs in addition to
rent or mortgage payments. The amount to subtract from housing cost for utilities is
informed on a county by county basis by local housing authorities. In the case of
Spokane County, the Spokane Housing Authority publishes worksheets for the
allowances for certain household utilities. Spokane Housing Authority’s most current
utility allowances are provided by housing type and the utilities involved (e.g. whether
they be gas or electric, forced air or furnace). By using the most common utility types
in Spokane, the following utility allowances can be assumed (see Figure 3).
Accordingly, the amounts in Figure 3 should be incorporated into the maximum
monthly housing cost calculation by subtracting them from the total. For the purposes
2.35 according to the US Census American Communities Survey, 2023 5-year Average.
See p. 35 of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element by the Department of Commerce, August,
2023.
1
2
Page 3 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 111]
Figure 3: Utility Allowances by Unit Type and Number of Bedrooms, Spokane County
Unit Type
0 Bedroom
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
High-Rise/Apartment
$206
$213
$227
$243
$259
$282
Middle Housing & Low Rise
$216
$224
$243
$263
$282
$300
Single-Unit, Duplex, Mobile Home
$232
$244
$263
$283
$304
$323
AVERAGE VALUE
$218
$227
$244
$263
$282
$302
Source: Spokane Housing Authority, February 2025.
Notes: Assumes electric heating, electric cooking, and electric water heating, indicated by the source as the most common condition. The average value is a calculated value of the average of
the values in the three unit types. It is not provided by Spokane Housing Authority.
of this analysis, and consistent with the overall assumption of 3 persons per unit, this
analysis will apply 2 bedroom average value of $244. This results in the following
calculation for maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment:
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost = Annual Income / 12 * 0.30 - $244
By applying this formula, the maximum monthly housing cost for each
affordability bracket result can be determined, as shown in Figure 4 below. Note that
the analysis in this report will utilize the three-person household data as discussed
previously.
Figure 4: Rent/Mortgage Payment Limits in Spokane County
Persons Per Household
AMI Bracket
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
30% AMI
$312
$378
$437
$559
$678
$797
50% AMI
$665
$782
$891
$1,016
$1,098
$1,181
80% AMI
$1,195
$1,387
$1,571
$1,772
$1,916
$2,058
100% AMI
$1,546
$1,789
$2,024
$2,276
$2,459
$2,642
120% AMI
$2,192
$2,477
$2,780
$3,003
$3,226
$3,448
Source: Calculated values based on method in text.
Notes: Assumes 30 percent of monthly income calculated from annual Area Median Income, minus utility allowances.
V.
The Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT)
Commerce has provided a complex set of tools for Counties and Jurisdictions to
utilize when determining their housing unit growth allocation through the planning
horizon. This tool, known as HAPT, provides the countywide housing allocation based
on the planning horizon and the County’s overall population growth, as well as
individualized jurisdiction housing growth based upon the share of the County’s
growth each jurisdiction expected to accommodate.
In the case of the Spokane County numbers, the County has adopted the middle
housing forecast from OFM. This forecast is the most statistically supported option
and provides for growth of 100,065 persons in the County by 2046. By using the
regionally adopted projections, the entire county’s allocation is provided (see Figure 5
below).
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 4 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 112]
Figure 5: Countywide Housing Growth Allocation–Cities Included
Permanent Housing Needs by Income Level in Housing Units (as % of Area Median Income)
TOTAL
0-30%AMI
Current Estimated Housing
221,840
Non-PSH
6,613
PSH
937
30-50%AMI 50-80%AMI 80-100%AMI 100-120%AMI >120%AMI
34,798
91,803
32,035
20,981
34,673
New Housing by 2046
297,024
26,518
6,651
48,418
100,647
36,807
24,918
53,065
Additional Units Needed
75,184
19,905
5,714
13,620
8,844
7,772
3,937
18,392
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income, as set by the United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Current AMI is for FY2025.
Once countywide need is determined, HAPT divides up countywide growth by a
number of possible methods. Spokane County and the Cities within it have chosen to use
“Method C” in HAPT, as it provides for both a statistical division of the overall growth
shown in Figure 5, but also accounts for housing need outside cities but within the Urban
Growth Area (UGA). See Appendix A for more information on this method.
HAPT requires that Counties apportion housing need among the Cities as a
percentage of regional housing growth each jurisdiction expects to accommodate.
Ultimately, the region agreed on a method to convert projected population share into
housing share, which was then input into HAPT (see Appendix A). Regarding the City of
Spokane, while the city is expected to experience 23.34% of population growth, the City’s
housing need represents 29.74% of the countywide housing growth. This is
commensurate with recent development in Spokane that has exceeded 1,300 units
annually since the recovery from COVID. By inputting 29.74 percent of countywide
housing growth for the city into HAPT, the tool provides the following housing need in the
city shown in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: City of Spokane Housing Growth Allocation (2020 to 2046)
Permanent Housing Needs by Income Level (as % of Area Median Income)
TOTAL
0-30%AMI
Estimated Current Housing
99,938
Non-PSH
3,534
PSH
937
Additional Units Needed
22,359
6,452
1,851
30-50%AMI 50-80%AMI 80-100%AMI 100-120%AMI >120%AMI
19,479
47,090
11,873
7,118
9,907
4,413
2,631
1,418
1,170
4,424
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income, as set by the United State Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). Current AMI is for FY2025.
As shown above, the City is expected to require 22,359 additional permanent housing
units between 2020 and 2046. While those units are spread among all the affordability
brackets, that spread is not equal bracket to bracket. Figure 7 on the following page
provides a graphical depiction of that need by bracket.
A Note On Housing Units Versus Population Growth
The city is expected to grow by 23,357 people between 2020 and 20463. Compared to
a housing need of 22,359 homes (Figure 6) the two projections would seem incongruous,
3
Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025.
Page 5 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 113]
Figure 7: City of Spokane New Housing Need by Household Income (2020-2046)
Source: Spokane County HAPT, January 2025.
Notes: Income limits provided by United State Housing and Urban Development Department, FY2025 Income Limits Documentation System, retrieved online at
www.huduser.gov.
as if the HAPT was assuming that most new residents will live alone in their home. This is
not the case, however, as HAPT provides for more than the housing units needed to
accommodate new population growth.
Per the Commerce guidance on the HAPT, the allocation accounts for three areas of
housing need, as follows:
• New Growth. The housing units to accommodate new population growth in the
city between 2020 and 2046. The proportion of new housing in the HAPT
corresponding to this need is approximately 60 percent of the total.
• Underproduction. In its study of housing needs and production in Washington,
Commerce identified that, overall, the state had under-produced housing by a
significant degree. This was largely due to COVID and other economic factors
outside the control of Cities and Counties, but the need is there regardless. To
remedy this situation, 30 percent of the HAPT housing allocation is included to
address issues with overpriced housing and historic underproduction. As a result,
approximately 30 percent of the HAPT allocation addresses the housing needs of
people who are already residing in Spokane.
• Homelessness. A small percentage of the overall HAPT allocation, approximately
10 percent, is intended to address the need of those experiencing homelessness
or in danger of imminent homelessness. As with underproduction, much of this
need is for people already in Spokane, not new growth.
While the City of Spokane has been allocated 22,359 units between 2020 and 2046,
only about 13,415 of those units are to accommodate new residents. Regardless, HB1220
states that the City must have enough capacity to accommodate the entire allocation, thus
this analysis in this report concerns the full number of units allocated (see Figure 6).
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 6 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 114]
A Note on Housing Affordability Brackets and Grouping
While HAPT provides for housing need in seven brackets (see Figure 6), difficulties
arise in providing such a high level of differentiation in housing data. It is near impossible
to divide housing costs into so many brackets due to the limited number of zoning types
and the high number of variables involved. As such, most jurisdictions have decided to
group the affordability brackets into the following three groups:
• 0-80% AMI – The highest need bracket, requiring the most program/funding
support.
• 80%-120% AMI - The middle bracket, where some support is necessary, but some
market-rate development may occur as well. Some organizations label this group
as “workforce housing.”
• 120%+AMI – The highest cost group, often called “market rate” housing.
Commerce’s guidance assumes little to no support for these householders.
Not only are jurisdictions using these three groupings, but the example tables and
calculations in Commerce’s own guidance group affordability thus. Accordingly, the City of
Spokane analysis will use the same groups.
VI.
Determining Affordability Bracket by Geographic Location
As demonstrated above, the HAPT indicates the City must accommodate 22,359
additional housing units between 2020 and 2046. To determine what capacity exists in the
city to accommodate those units, Commerce provides specific guidelines in their
“Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element,” published August 2023. This guidance
directs jurisdictions to consider their zoning and which housing types might be assumed
in those zones. Additionally, the guidance from Commerce directs jurisdictions to use
multiple data sources to determine what affordability can be expected from various
housing types. The following analysis conforms substantially to the Commerce guidance.
Using Zoning to Inform Housing Affordability
The Commerce guidance indicates that jurisdictions should compare the housing
types allowed in individual zones to inform what level of affordability might be expected
in given areas. To this end, the City analyzed all zones in which housing is allowed and
compared the housing types and densities assumed for each, as shown in Figure 8 on the
following page.
The City of Spokane is somewhat unusual, in that the municipal code allows for the
development of residential uses in all zones except industrial zones. Additionally, most
housing types (single-unit and middle housing) are allowed everywhere. Save for the lower
density residential zones (RA, R1, and R2), multi-unit housing is allowed in every zone. This
makes it difficult to impossible to differentiate housing development in the city only by
considering zoning.
Page 7 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 115]
Figure 8: Zoning Classified by Housing Type and Maximum Density
Zone
RA
R1
R2
RMF
RHD
Housing Types Allowed
Single-Unit and Middle Housing
Middle Housing
Middle Housing & Multi-Unit
Maximum Density
Allowed
10 (approximate)
10 (approximate)
Assumed Density
Density Group
5-9 du/ac
Residential Low
29 du/ac
Residential High
20 (approximate)
30 (approximate)
No Limit
NR
CB
GC
O
Middle Housing & Multi-Unit
No Limit
Middle Housing & Multi-Unit
No Limit
OR
30.2 du/ac in 33%
of the Area
Non-Residential
CC#
CA1
DTC
DTG
DTU
44.4 du/ac in 33%
of the area
Downtown
DTS
Source: Spokane Municipal Code, SMC Title 17; Shaping Spokane, the Spokane Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 3); Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane
(2025).
Notes: Maximum density is approximate in residential zones due to the fact that lots under 2 acres are not restricted by density–rather the SMC uses height and
setbacks to control for density in these zones. Assumed Density and Density Group conform to the City’s Land Capacity Analysis, adopted March 10, 2025, via
resolution RES 2025-0015.
Further complicating matters, the City does not have sufficient data to correlate
housing type with housing affordability as suggested by the Department of Commerce.
This is not a failure by the City, rather the requirement to track such data did not exist
historically, so these values weren’t collected. To remedy this, the Commerce guidance
provides for the option for Cities to augment and adjust affordability assumptions using
publicly available market data.4
Sources for Housing Affordability for Rentals and Purchases
Cities, Spokane included, often do not track the affordability of a given housing unit
when permitting its construction. Accordingly, the City has limited internal sources that
might indicate at what level of affordability housing development is occurring. As a result,
the City must look outside it’s own data for this information.
Per the suggestion in the Commerce guidance, the City has utilized data from multiple
sources to determine housing affordability by type, including the following:
• Home Value (purchases) by neighborhood provided by Zillow.com. Zillow
provides a combination of self-reported and industry information on home
purchases, assembling that data into ‘neighborhoods’ that generally conform to
certain parts of the city.
See p. 32 of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element by the Department of Commerce, August,
2023.
4
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 8 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 116]
• Home Value (purchases) by neighborhood provided by Redfin.com. Redfin is
similar to Zillow, but follows a more industry-based approach for home value,
lessening the impact of individual self-reported home values skewing the results.
As with Zillow, Redfin data can be divided up roughly by neighborhood.
• Median Rents by neighborhood provided by Apartments.com. Like with Zillow
but in this case concerning rentals, Apartments.com is somewhat weighted by
self-reporting while also accounting for historic data related to past listings that
may not currently be open for rent.
• Median rents by neighborhood provided by Rentcafe.com. Similar to Redfin,
RentCafe’s data is backed up by industry information in addition to current active
listings. RentCafe also directly contacts management companies and real estate
professionals to augment their data with additional confirmation.
Rent/Purchase Price by Affordability Bracket
Before a comparison can be made between median house price and monthly housing
costs, the home price must be converted to an assumed mortgage payment. Following the
Commerce guidance, the City utilized the Fannie Mae mortgage calculator to determine
what the approximate monthly mortgage payment might be for home purchases in the
City. The Fannie Mae mortgage calculator5 requires the user to input various assumed
factors that affect the payment amount. The factors used for this analysis were the most
common factors reported by Realtor.com for home purchases in Spokane County,
namely:
• 5 percent down payment;
• 30-year fixed rate loan; and
• 6.8% interest.
Plugging those factors into the Fannie Mae mortgage calculator returned a monthly
payment for each neighborhood’s median home price. That monthly value was then
converted into the annual income necessary to maintain such a payment amount. For this,
the Commerce assumption that 30 percent of annual income as the maximum that should
go to home payments/rents was assumed. The calculation shown in Figure 9 on the
following page provided the income required for a given median home price.
The same base calculation was used to determine the income required for rentals,
using the median rents provided by Apartments.com or RentCafe. Since those sources
provide rents in a monthly form to begin with, the first step (using a mortgage calculator)
was not necessary. Income required for a given median rent was calculated by dividing by
0.3 and multiplying by 12 only.
5
https://yourhome.fanniemae.com/calculators-tools/mortgage-calculator
Page 9 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 117]
Figure 9: Process for Calculating Income from Median Home Price
Source: City of Spokane, based on WA Department of Commerce, “Guidance for Updating your Housing Element” (August 2023).
Notes: Fannie Mae mortgage calculator assumed a 5 percent down payment, 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and 6.8% interest, as averages provided by Realtor.com
for Spokane County.
Utilizing the calculations above, an affordability bracket can be assumed for each part
of the City for both median home price (purchases) and median rent (rentals). As an
example calculation for rental units, the following sample calculation utilizes the RentCafe
reported average rent for the Cliff-Cannon neighborhood:
1. Average Rent = $1,521
2. Assuming 30% of Income for Rent (Rent / 0.3) = $5,070
3. Multiplied by 12 to convert from monthly to annual: $60,840
Because $60,840 falls within the 0-80%AMI bracket (see Figure 2), we can assume that
rental units in the Cliff-Cannon neighborhood generally fall within that bracket. By using
this same calculation for both sources of rental data (Apartments.com and RentCafe) the
affordability bracket for each area in the city can be determined, as shown in Figure 10
and Figure 11 on following pages.
As an example calculation for units for purchase, the following sample uses the Zillow.
com reported median home value in the Northwest Neighborhood:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Median Home Value = $346,592
Mortgage Payment (Fannie Mae) = $2,966
Assuming 30% of Income for Mortgage (Payment / 0.3) = $9,887 a month
Multiplied by 12 to convert from monthly to annual = $118,640
Because $118,640 falls within the 120+%AMI bracket (Figure 2), we can assume that
homes for purchase in the Northwest Neighborhood generally fall within that bracket. By
using this method for both sources for sales data (Zillow and Redfin) the affordability
bracket for each area can be determined, as shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Summary tables showing the calculations above for all four sources and all areas of
the city are included at the end of this report. See Appendix B for more details.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 10 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 118]
Figure 10: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Apartments.com)
Source: Apartments.com, data
from May 2025.
Notes: Areas used by the source do not
necessarily match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown. The source had no
data for blank areas.
Figure 11: Rent Affordability by Approximate Location (Rentcafe.com)
Source: Rentcafe.com, data
from May 2025.
Notes: Areas used by the source do not
necessarily match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown. The blank area
contains zero housing units, thus it is not
shown here.
Page 11 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 119]
Figure 12: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Zillow.com)
Source: Zillow.com, data from
May 2025.
Notes: The source had no data
for blank areas. Areas used by
the source do not necessarily
match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown.
Figure 13: Home Value Affordability by Approximate Location (Redfin.com)
Source: Redfin.com, data from
May 2025.
Notes: The source had no data
for blank areas. Areas used by
the source do not necessarily
match neighborhood
boundaries, as shown.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 12 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 120]
By comparing and combining the four maps above, general affordability assumptions
can be made for both rental and purchase homes by location in the City, as shown in
Figure 14. These assumptions were used by this analysis to assign assumed affordability
to either rental units or homes for purchase in each part of the City.
Figure 14: Assumed Affordability by Location–Rentals and Purchases
Source: City of Spokane, Synthesized from multiple sources.
As shown above, rented units in the City generally fall within the 0-80%AMI bracket,
though two smaller areas tend to be more expensive, falling within the 80-120%AMI
bracket. The picture for housing units for purchase is more complex, with a somewhat
even split between areas exhibiting 80-120%AMI units and areas in the 120+%AMI
Page 13 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 121]
bracket. By determining affordability by geography in this way, the analysis can be more
nuanced as to the expected affordability of new units in the City over the next twenty
years. Many jurisdictions can consider their affordability for the entire City, but the great
size of Spokane (nearly 70 square miles) points to the need for a more refines analysis
than simply one value for the entire city. The approach outlined above grants that higher
level of detail.
Determining Housing Tenure
Now that the areas of the City in which certain affordability brackets can be assumed
has been established, the only remaining step is to determine which new units might be
for rent and which might be for purchase. Of note, it is inaccurate to assume that all
detached homes are for purchase, as the rental house market in Spokane is rather robust.
To determine the split of rented and purchase units expected in the city, this analysis
utilized data from the American Communities Survey (ACS) 5-year average reports from
2023. ACS provides sample-based data to fill in between the decennial censuses, providing
a relatively reliable data source for tenure (owned versus rented).
By polling ACS data, the City determined the mix of owned and rented homes in each
Census Tract, resulting in the maps on the following pages (Figure 15 and Figure 16). By
utilizing the ratio of rented to owned homes in each tract, any capacity for new housing
development in those tracts can be split accordingly into assumed rental units and units
for purchase. For instance, assume a given Census Tract exhibits 60% owned and 40%
rented units. That same Tract, say, shows an expected affordability of 80-120%AMI for
rental units and 120%+AMI for purchased units (per Figure 14). If that tract has capacity
for 100 units, 40 of those units could be assumed to be rented in the 80-120%AMI bracket
and 60 units could be assumed to be sold in the 120+%AMI bracket. This is precisely the
calculation used to determine final capacity in this report.
V.
Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket
The Commerce guidance states that once a jurisdiction has determined the
affordability of various housing types, zones, and locations, then the unit capacity in those
areas should be incorporated into the analysis. As the City has completed its LCA6, that
analysis provides a theoretical unit capacity in various locations throughout the city. Per
Commerce’s guidance, the unit capacity from the LCA was used in this analysis.
Because the LCA provides for potential units of capacity by geographic location within
the city, each unit of capacity in the LCA can be compared to the tenure assumptions
shown in Figures 15 and 16, producing an assumed number of rented units and owned
units of capacity in each Census tract. For example, if the LCA found that 100 units of
capacity exist in a tract of 60 percent owned and 40 percent rented homes, this analysis
assumes that 60 units of capacity would be owned and 40 units of capacity would be
rented.
6
Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, adopted March 10, 2025, via resolution RES 2025-0015.
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 14 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 122]
Figure 15: Percent of Rented Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)
Figure 16: Percent of Owned Homes by Census Tract (All Housing Types)
Source (Both): US Census Bureau, American Communities Survey, 2023 5-Year Average
Note (Both): Areas around the Spokane International Airport are blank due to a lack of any housing in this area.
Page 15 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 123]
Once the assumptions for tenure (owned versus rented) are applied to units of
capacity in the LCA, the affordability of those units can be inferred by comparing the
location to the affordability in Figure 14. A schematic example of this calculation is shown
below (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Example Affordability Calculation–LCA to Affordability Bracket
Special Cases in the Land Capacity Analysis
The LCA considers two special areas in its analysis, those of adopted Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) that have not yet completed platting all lots, and the South Logan
Transit Oriented Development (South Logan TOD) subarea analysis. Readers are referred
to the LCA itself for details on how these areas were handled in the LCA.
Following the process in the LCA, the analysis of affordability herein considers the
PUDs and South Logan TOD area separately as well. This is for the same reason—a greater
level of specificity is known about the development potential in these areas. Regarding the
PUDs, these typically involve either single-unit homes or multi-unit buildings as part of a
larger planned development with (generally) higher costs for residents, both rented or
purchased. Accordingly, for any units of capacity within PUDs the analysis in this report
assumes those units to occur at the more costly affordability bracket—namely 80-120%
AMI for rental units and 120+% AMI for purchased homes. Additionally, most PUDs include
covenants that restrict the renting of homes within PUDs. As a result, this analysis
assumes that 100 percent of single unit homes in PUDs will be for purchase. Likewise, all
multi-unit potential in PUDs is assumed to be for rent.
When considering the South Logan TOD area, the project area located in a part of the
City with the least affordable brackets in both rentals and purchase homes. Accordingly,
all units in the South Logan TOD area are assumed by this analysis to be in the 120+% AMI
bracket for purchase and the 80-120%AMI bracket for rentals.
VI.
Housing Unit Development Since 2020
The housing allocation provided by Commerce via the HAPT establishes need between
the years 2020 and 2046. Because development has continued since 2020 and the unity
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
Page 16 of 20
AGENDA
[Page 124]
capacity presented by the LCA is for 2025, housing units built between 2020 and 2025
should be accounted for. In essence, any unit constructed between 2021 and now would
reduce the overall need identified by the HAPT.
To do this, all residential permits issued between January 1, 2021 and December 31,
2024 were pulled from the City’s permit database. All completed units–-those issued a
Certificate of Occupancy or indicating a successful final inspection–were geo-located and
compared to the affordability assumptions in Figure 14, resulting in a tabulated number
of completed units in each of the affordability brackets. These units were then subtracted
from the “new” units called for in HAPT. This number of completed units is included in the
final table of this report (see below).
VII.
RESULTS: Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability Bracket
Overall, the LCA found that the City has sufficient theoretical capacity to
accommodate slightly more than 30,000 dwelling units. By applying those units of capacity
to the assumptions and calculations described in the sections above, those units are
divided among the three affordability brackets as follows (see Figure 18):
According to this analysis, informed by and in compliance with the guidance of the
Figure 18: Final Results–City of Spokane Housing Unit Capacity by Affordability
0-80%AMI Units
80-120%AMI Units
120+%AMI Units
Need (Commerce HAPT, 2020-2046)
15,347
2,588
4,424
Units Completed (2020-2024)
1,328
507
978
Capacity for Additional Growth (2025-2046)
9,654
8,036
12,475
Comparison RESULT
-4,365
5,955
9,029
Source: Need = Department of Commerce Housing Allocation Planning Tool (HAPT). Completed Units: City of Spokane,
Acella Data 2021 to 2024. Capacity for Additional Growth = Land Capacity Analysis for the City of Spokane, 2025,
classified per the analysis outlined in this report.
Notes: Completed units represent those building permits issued by the City between January 1, 2021 and December 31,
2024, showing that either a certificate of occupancy was issued or a final inspection has been completed.
Resulting unit capacity represents the result of the analysis and calculations described in this report.
Comparison represents the following calculation: (Completed Units + Unit Capacity) - Need = Comparison RESULT. A
negative number denotes a lack of sufficient capacity in that affordability bracket to accommodate the need identified
by HAPT.
Department of Commerce, the City of Spokane does not currently contain sufficient
capacity to accommodate needed growth in the 0-80%AMI bracket. Concurrently, the
City has excess capacity in both the 80-120% AMI bracket and the 120+% AMI bracket.
To comply with the requirements of House Bill 1220, the City must consider, as part of the
overall Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, actions sufficient to raise the capacity in the
0-80%AMI bracket by nearly 4,400 units. Those changes will likely be identified during the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan Update,
as well as during preparation of the Update itself. For more information on these changes
as they are developed, readers are encouraged to visit www.planspokane.org.
Page 17 of 20
2025 Accommodating Affordable Housing
AGENDA
[Page 125]
Appendix A:
Housing Allocation Planning Tool
Documentation
Appendix to Accommodating Affordable Housing in the City of Spokane, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 126]
Appendix A: Page A-1
AGENDA
[Page 127]
Appendix A: Page A-2
AGENDA
[Page 128]
Appendix A: Page A-3
AGENDA
[Page 129]
Appendix A: Page A-4
AGENDA
[Page 130]
Appendix A: Page A-5
AGENDA
[Page 131]
Appendix A: Page A-6
AGENDA
[Page 132]
Appendix A: Page A-7
AGENDA
[Page 133]
Recommendation for HAPT: Housing Share
PLANNING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Report and Recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Periodic Update under the Growth Management Act, 2026 to 2046
Written and Recommended by PTAC, January 2025
Appendix A: Page A-8
AGENDA
[Page 134]
Executive Summary
The Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) has identified a possible issue with previous runs of
the Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT), which all communities planning under the Growth Management
Act have been advised to use when allocating housing by affordability for the region. The intended input
for the tool—the data that is provided to the tool and then used to calculate each jurisdictions’ housing
allocation—is the share of housing growth each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate. Unfortunately,
due to unclear instructions, the previous HAPT outputs shared with the Steering Committee of Elected
Officials (SCEO) used the share of population growth instead.
Following a review of the data and the HAPT itself, the PTAC recommends that the region use housing
growth share as the input for the HAPT, specifically a housing growth share created by applying the same
assumptions built into the HAPT tool itself to convert the adopted population share to housing share.
Of note, this recommendation does not affect which method within HAPT is utilized. The existing SCEO
recommendation for the method known as “A Prime” is not affected by PTACs recommendation in this
memo.
The full output of the HAPT, assuming that housing share generated in the way recommended by PTAC is
used, is attached to the end of this memo.
Introduction
Following the SCEO vote to recommend Method “A Prime” when using the HAPT, the members of PTAC
identified that there had been some confusion as to which inputs should be provided to the HAPT when
calculating housing share. As a result, PTAC’s Housing Subcommittee met several times in the third and
fourth quarters of 2024 to consider how this might affect the housing allocation output from HAPT. In
essence, it appears to PTAC that the HAPT was intended to be provided with the share of housing growth
each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate, while previous use of the HAPT utilized the share of
population growth instead.
After discussing this at length, PTAC has developed a method for converting the currently adopted
Population Share 1 to housing growth share, which can then be input into HAPT. This memo outlines the
recommendation by PTAC for doing this, and provides the summary growth numbers for each jurisdiction
that results.
HAPT Method A Prime
At their meeting on September 25, 2024, the SCEO voted to recommend the use of the “A Prime” method
in the HAPT. Throughout this discussion and recommendation by PTAC, no change to this method is
anticipated or recommended. PTAC feels that SCEO’s original recommendation, adopted on September
24, 2024, does not require revision to accommodate PTAC’s recommendations herein.
1
Adopted by BOCC Resolution 24-0348 on June 18, 2024.
Page | 1
Appendix A: Page A-9
AGENDA
[Page 135]
Housing Share versus Population Share
When PTAC and SCEO previously saw the “A Prime” results, it was always using the share of population
growth assigned to each jurisdiction per the adopted allocation 2. However, after multiple conversations
within PTAC and with Commerce staff, it was apparent that the instructions in HAPT were unclear and
that the tool was instead asking for the share of housing growth.
The share of population growth and the share of housing growth are directly related to each other, but
due to certain factors they are rarely the same number for a given jurisdiction. For instance, household
size (people per household) in each jurisdiction is not the same nor does it stay static over time.
Household size is continually changing from year to year. Furthermore, some jurisdictions contain a larger
amount of group quarters housing (i.e. college dorms, prisons, treatment centers) and that rate changes
over time. Those living in group quarters do not require additional housing units, thus they must be
subtracted from the overall population growth share for each jurisdiction.
Because of these factors, it is important to develop a share of housing each jurisdiction for the entirety of
the planning horizon (through 2046), not just today. Jurisdictions differ from each other and some
attempt to differentiate their allocations accordingly should be made as well.
A Note on the Underproduction of Housing
An additional factor has been raised by public commenters and PTAC members that is worth discussing
here. That factor is the known historic underproduction of housing statewide. Commerce’s research has
made it clear that development in jurisdictions across the state have been lower than what is required to
house existing populations. As a result, many jurisdictions’ current housing stock is already too small to
accommodate the need of the existing population, not to mention the growth that is coming.
It is important to note that HAPT factors this underproduction into its results. Accordingly, the number
of housing units a jurisdiction may be allocated when using HAPT will appear high when compared to
population growth. This is specifically because HAPT attempts to also allocate sufficient housing to
accommodate the recent underproduction of housing as well as future growth. This condition is true
regardless of which input is used for HAPT.
Determining Housing Share
The Department of Commerce has not provided jurisdictions with a method for calculating housing
growth share. Likewise, GMA does not mandate that Cities and Counties use a particular method to
develop housing share. However, the PTAC subcommittee found that the HAPT itself provides one
possible method.
While PTAC spent considerable time exploring other ways to convert population growth to housing
growth, ultimately PTAC felt that because the resulting housing share would be input into HAPT, it was
most defensible to use the assumptions already built into HAPT to calculate housing share. That way, the
same set of assumptions would be applied to all parts of the tool and any unintentional bias or
modification of results would be minimized.
2
Adopted by BOCC Resolution 24-0348 on June 18, 2024.
Page | 2
Appendix A: Page A-10
AGENDA
[Page 136]
Essentially, the housing share for each jurisdiction would be calculated directly from the population share
already adopted by the BOCC. While it is more sophisticated than can be expressed simply here, the
method for calculating housing share from population share is generally 3 as follows:
[(Population Share – Group Quarters Population) / Household Size] + 6% to Account for Vacant Homes
For the purposes of the HAPT, the tool assumes that household size is shrinking over time and that each
jurisdiction will see the same share of group housing in the County as they are in 2020. The resulting
housing share for each jurisdiction and area is as shown in the following table. Again, when considering
the resulting housing share, the following should be kept in mind:
Population share and housing share are not the same thing, though they are related to one
another.
Housing share in the tool is somewhat elevated to account for historic underproduction of
housing.
Table 1: Population and Housing Share Compared
Jurisdiction
Spokane County (Whole)
All Unincorporated Areas
Unincorporated Rural
Unincorporated UGA
Incorporated County
Share:
Population
Growth
100.00%
35.21%
4.70%
30.51%
64.79%
Share:
Housing
Growth
100.00%
31.14%
8.24%
22.81%
68.95%
Jurisdiction
Airway Heights
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane
Spokane Valley
Waverly
Share:
Share:
Population Housing
Growth
Growth
6.66%
5.26%
3.37%
2.76%
1.36%
1.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.78%
6.89%
0.24%
0.44%
0.05%
0.14%
0.07%
0.09%
0.00%
0.02%
23.34%
29.74%
20.90%
22.16%
0.01%
0.02%
As shown in the table, when comparing population share to housing share, some jurisdictions are
expected to accommodate a lower share of housing growth than population growth (e.g. Liberty Lake)
while others are shown to expect a higher share of housing than population (e.g. the City of Spokane).
Why this happens is complex and due to the fact that HAPT uses multiple factors from multiple sources
to determine these amounts.
Because the HAPT only has one input for each jurisdiction—share of housing growth—those jurisdictions
where the housing share is larger than population share can expect their housing number output from
HAPT to increase when compared to the sample outputs discussed by SCEO previously. Conversely,
The assumptions in HAPT are more sophisticated than this, accounting for changes over time and each jurisdiction’s
share of certain values. Replication of the numbers herein by using this simplified equation should not be considered
when evaluating this recommendation.
3
Page | 3
Appendix A: Page A-11
AGENDA
[Page 137]
jurisdictions with smaller housing share than population share can expect their HAPT output to decrease
over earlier results.
Comparing HAPT Results from Prior Versions and Now
As a handy comparison of how overall housing
allocations would change when housing share
is input into HAPT rather than population
share, the table at right lists the total housing
allocation using both inputs. Also shown is
whether the total housing units would increase
or decrease for each jurisdiction when using
housing share, as the tool intended.
While housing share is the intended input for
HAPT, using housing share would increase the
housing allocation to the rural areas (outside
the UGA). To a greater degree, the larger
jurisdictions would also be subject to a larger
allocation.
It’s important to note that while this represents
a large change for some jurisdictions, increased
allocations to those communities in the center
of the UGA (City of Spokane, Spokane Valley) is
consistent with the requirements of GMA,
wherein growth should be concentrated in the
UGA and limited on the edges.
Table 2: Comparison of HAPT Total Housing by Jurisdiction
Total New Units
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated Rural
Unincorporated UGA
Airway Heights
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane
Spokane Valley
Waverly
Using
Pop
Share
3,534
22,946
5,007
2,535
1,023
0
0
6,601
179
36
53
0
17,550
15,713
7
Using
Housing
Share
6,195
17,142
3,955
2,076
1,083
0
0
5,180
329
106
68
15
22,359
16,661
15
Change if
Using
Housing
Share
Higher
Lower
Lower
Lower
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
While the allocation for unincorporated rural areas would be more than 3/4 larger, that increase would
be spread throughout a very large area (all parts of the County outside the UGA), tempering the effects
of that growth somewhat. Furthermore, urban scale services to those additional homes would not be
required due to their location.
PTAC Recommendations: Housing Share and HAPT
Following multiple discussions on the differences between population share and housing share, PTAC
generally feels that housing share, created using the same assumptions already built into the HAPT, is the
most defensible and effective input for the HAPT. The following benefits of using housing share discussed
were as follows:
The assumptions used to generate housing share from population share are identical to those in
the HAPT now.
The HAPT model is sophisticated—an adjustment in one variable can have unintended
consequences.
The data used to generate housing share have already been considered and adopted by the BOCC.
Page | 4
Appendix A: Page A-12
AGENDA
[Page 138]
Final Results
If the share of housing growth indicated in Table 1 in input into the HAPT, and the method previously
described as Method A Prime in the SCEO recommendation is utilized, then the final housing allocation
shown in the attached spreadsheet is provided.
Page | 5
Appendix A: Page A-13
AGENDA
[Page 139]
Appendix A: Page A-14
AGENDA
[Page 140]
Appendix B:
Assembled Affordability by SubArea from
Public Market Data Sources
Appendix to Accommodating Affordable Housing in the City of Spokane, 2025
AGENDA
[Page 141]
Affordability Data by Subarea - Purchase Costs
Home Prices
from fanniemae mortgage calculator
Mortgage
Income
Source: Zillow
Subarea
Median Value Payment
Balboa-South Indian Trail
$424,754
$3,635
Bemiss
$280,200
Browne's Addition
$354,056
Chief Garry Park
Required
Bracket
$145,400
120+%AMI
$2,398
$95,920
80-100%AMI
$3,031
$121,240
120+%AMI
$268,467
$2,298
$91,920
80-100%AMI
Cliff-Cannon
$405,652
$3,473
$138,920
120+%AMI
Comstock
$448,209
$3,836
$153,440
120+%AMI
East Central
$307,951
$2,636
$105,440
80-100%AMI
Emerson-Garfield
$292,084
$2,500
$100,000
80-100%AMI
Five Mile-Prairie
$565,299
$4,839
$193,560
120+%AMI
Hillyard
$280,517
$2,401
$96,040
80-100%AMI
Latah Valley
$566,119
$4,846
$193,840
120+%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$391,469
$3,351
$134,040
120+%AMI
Logan
$303,672
$2,599
$103,960
80-100%AMI
Manito-Cannon Hill
$535,315
$4,582
$183,280
120+%AMI
Minnehaha
$314,370
$2,690
$107,600
80-100%AMI
Moran Prairie
$494,428
$4,232
$169,280
120+%AMI
Nevada-Lidgerwood
$299,131
$2,560
$102,400
80-100%AMI
North Hill
$310,829
$2,661
$106,440
80-100%AMI
North Indian Trail
$496,470
$4,249
$169,960
120+%AMI
Northwest
$346,592
$2,966
$118,640
120+%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$329,062
$2,817
$112,680
120+%AMI
Riverside
$400,099
$3,424
$136,960
120+%AMI
Rockwood
$619,562
$5,303
$212,120
120+%AMI
Thorpe-Westwood
$442,224
$3,785
$151,400
120+%AMI
West Central
$299,526
$2,563
$102,520
80-100%AMI
West Hills
$405,951
$3,475
$139,000
120+%AMI
Whitman
$280,856
$2,404
$96,160
80-100%AMI
Home Prices
from fanniemae mortgage calculator
Mortgage
Income
Source: Redfin
Subarea
Balboa-South Indian Trail
Median Value Payment
$382,450
$3,274
Required
$130,960
Bracket
120+%AMI
Bemiss
$295,750
$2,532
$101,280
80-100%AMI
Browne's Addition
$310,000
$2,654
$106,160
80-100%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$296,956
$2,542
$101,680
80-100%AMI
Cliff-Cannon
$430,000
$3,681
$147,240
120+%AMI
Comstock
$435,475
$3,728
$149,120
120+%AMI
East Central
$300,000
$2,568
$102,720
80-100%AMI
Emerson-Garfield
$302,500
$2,589
$103,560
80-100%AMI
Five Mile-Prairie
$565,530
$4,841
$193,640
120+%AMI
Grandview Thorpe
$463,000
$3,962
$158,480
120+%AMI
Hillyard
$285,000
$2,439
$97,560
80-100%AMI
Latah Valley
$574,950
$4,921
$196,840
120+%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$403,000
$3,449
$137,960
120+%AMI
Logan
$318,000
$2,722
$108,880
120+%AMI
Manito-Cannon Hill
$540,000
$4,622
$184,880
120+%AMI
Minnehaha
$330,000
$2,825
$113,000
120+%AMI
Moran Prairie
$634,656
$5,432
$217,280
120+%AMI
Nevada-Lidgerwood
$302,000
$2,585
$103,400
80-100%AMI
North Hill
$305,000
$2,611
$104,440
80-100%AMI
North Side
$335,000
$2,868
$114,720
120+%AMI
Northwest Spokane
$340,000
$2,910
$116,400
120+%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$310,000
$2,654
$106,160
80-100%AMI
Riverside
$460,000
$3,937
$157,480
120+%AMI
Rockwood
$635,000
$5,435
$217,400
120+%AMI
West Central
$280,500
$2,400
$96,000
80-100%AMI
West Hills
$415,000
$3,552
$142,080
120+%AMI
Whitman
$291,000
$2,491
$99,640
80-100%AMI
NOTE: The subareas above do not necessarily correspond to Spokane Neighborhood Council boundaries.
Appendix B: Page B-1
AGENDA
[Page 142]
Affordability Data by Subarea - Rental Costs
Rental Costs
Source: RentCafe
Subarea
Average Rent
Income
(May 2025)
Required
Bracket
Balboa - South Indian Trail
$1,330
$53,200
0-80%AMI
Bemiss
$1,442
$57,680
0-80%AMI
Browne's Addition
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$1,426
$57,040
0-80%AMI
Cliff - Cannon
$1,441
$57,640
0-80%AMI
Comstock
$1,373
$54,920
0-80%AMI
East Central Spokane
$1,345
$53,800
0-80%AMI
Emerson - Garfield
$1,521
$60,840
0-80%AMI
Five Mile Prairie
$1,328
$53,120
0-80%AMI
Grandview - Thorpe
$1,540
$61,600
0-80%AMI
Hillyard
$1,366
$54,640
0-80%AMI
Latah Valley
$1,467
$58,680
0-80%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$1,149
$45,960
0-80%AMI
Logan
$2,009
$80,360
80-120%AMI
Manito - Cannon Hill
$1,139
$45,560
0-80%AMI
Minnehaha
$1,366
$54,640
0-80%AMI
Moran Prairie
$1,329
$53,160
0-80%AMI
Nevada - Lidgerwood
$1,237
$49,480
0-80%AMI
North Hill
$1,072
$42,880
0-80%AMI
North Indian Trail
$1,759
$70,360
80-120%AMI
Northwest Spokane
$1,382
$55,280
0-80%AMI
Peaceful Valley
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
Riverside
$1,466
$58,640
0-80%AMI
Rockwood
$1,139
$45,560
0-80%AMI
Southgate
$1,529
$61,160
0-80%AMI
West Central Spokane
$1,546
$61,840
0-80%AMI
West Hills
$1,425
$57,000
0-80%AMI
West Meadows
$1,277
$51,080
0-80%AMI
Whitman
$1,335
$53,400
0-80%AMI
Rental Costs
Source: Apartments.com
Subarea
Average Rent
Income
(May 2025)
Required
Bracket
Bemiss
$1,202
$48,080
0-80%AMI
Chief Garry Park
$1,555
$62,200
0-80%AMI
City Center
$1,460
$58,400
0-80%AMI
Cliff Cannon
$1,359
$54,360
0-80%AMI
Comstock
$1,330
$53,200
0-80%AMI
Dartford
$1,394
$55,760
0-80%AMI
Downtown
$1,410
$56,400
0-80%AMI
Emerson Garfield
$1,374
$54,960
0-80%AMI
Lincoln Heights
$1,127
$45,080
0-80%AMI
Logan
$1,360
$54,400
0-80%AMI
Moran Prairie
$1,380
$55,200
0-80%AMI
Nevada Lidgerwood
$1,202
$48,080
0-80%AMI
North Spokane
$1,311
$52,440
0-80%AMI
Palisades Park
$1,282
$51,280
0-80%AMI
Rockwood
$1,157
$46,280
0-80%AMI
South Spokane
$1,265
$50,600
0-80%AMI
Town and Country
$1,369
$54,760
0-80%AMI
U-District
$1,659
$66,360
80-120%AMI
West Central
$1,326
$53,040
0-80%AMI
West Spokane
$1,274
$50,960
0-80%AMI
NOTE: The subareas above do not necessarily correspond to Spokane Neighborhood Council boundaries.
Appendix B: Page B-2
AGENDA
[Page 143]
City of Spokane
Department of Planning & Economic Development
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 625-6500
compplan@spokanecity.org
AGENDA
[Page 144]
CRSB RECOMMENDATION No.: 2026- 001
CITY OF SPOKANE CLIMATE RESILIENCE & SUSTAINABILITY BOARD
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE POLICY
INTEGRATION DOCUMENT IN THE 2026 PERIODIC UPDATE
Resolution to the City of Spokane Plan Commission to include Climate Policy
Integration in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board (CRSB) spent 2025
evaluate and develop goals and policies to integrate
climate planning into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the PlanSpokane 2046 Periodic
Update, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane has developed climate planning under HB 1181 to
enhance community resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prioritize
environmental justice to avoid worsening environmental health disparities, which has been
supported by a Washington Department of Commerce climate planning grant which is
funded from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, and;
WHEREAS the CRSB serves as the Climate Policy Advisory Team for the climate
planning element within the City of Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan and its members have
evaluated and reviewed the draft climate policy integration document; and
WHEREAS, the CRSB held a hearing on whether to recommend approval of the
Climate Policy Integration document to the City of Spokane Plan Commission on February
12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing the CRSB received comment from Kirsten
Angell and deliberated over including an additional recommendation for consideration by
the Plan Commission to amend NE 11.4 Forest Inventory Database as follows:
and wildlife habitat, evaluated for their ecological and climate resilience values,
using Best Available Science. A Natural Area and Habitat Connectivity Network
database in the city’s geographic Information System would disseminate the
information for decision makers and the public in a usable, interactive format.”
WHEREAS, the CRSB, by a vote of 12 Ayes 0 Nays recommends the following:
AGENDA
[Page 145]
NOW, THEREFORE --- it is hereby resolved by the Spokane Climate Resilience &
Sustainability Board to
1. Recommend to the City of Spokane Plan Commission inclusion of the
climate policies listed in the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft
Final Climate Policies” in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Further recommend to the City of Spokane Plan Commission consideration of
amended language of NE 11.4 Forest Inventory Database, as outlined above.
3. Authorize the Chair prepare and sign on the Board’s behalf a written decision
consistent with CRSB Rule 6.5 and attached as Attachment A.
ADOPTED by the Spokane Climate Resilience & Sustainability Board by a vote of 12
Ayes & 0 Nays on this 12th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
Brian G. Henning, CRSB Chair
Approved as to form:
_________________________________
City Attorney
AGENDA
[Page 146]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
CITY OF SPOKANE CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON CLIMATE POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANSPOKANE 2046
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE
A recommendation of the City of Spokane Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board to the
Spokane Plan Commission for integration of climate policies within the PlanSpokane 2046
periodic update consistent with state laws.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The City of Spokane (City) is required to amend and adopt a Comprehensive Plan that
complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) under RCW
36.70A.040.
B. The City is undertaking a periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan, which is the guiding
document for future growth and includes actions by the City, due at the end of 2026.
PlanSpokane 2046 will identify policies and future regulations to direct the next 20 years of
growth for the City.
C. In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed HB1181 which added a climate goal to the
GMA under RCW 36.70.70A and requires local comprehensive plans to have a climate
change and resiliency element that is designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse
gas emissions and enhance resiliency to and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change,
to include efforts to reduce localized greenhouse gas emissions and avoid creating or
worsening localized climate impacts to vulnerable populations and overburdened
communities.
D. The Washington State Department of Commerce (WA Commerce) published the Climate
Element Planning Guidance to help counties and cities planning under the state's GMA
develop the comprehensive plan climate element with goals and policies that align with the
requirements outlined in RCW 36.070.70A.
E. City Council adopted Resolution 2024-0038 to initiate climate planning consistent with the
requirements of HB 1181 under the comprehensive plan periodic update.
F. During the 2023-2025 state biennium, WA Commerce made available through the
Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA) approximately $30 million in statewide grants to
help counties and cities prepare for the impacts of climate change through 2029. The City was
allocated $700,000.
G. For the 2023-2025 biennium, City Council accepted $420,000 of the allocation (OPR 20240142) for Phase 1 of climate planning, which focused on early community engagement,
climate impacts analysis, policy gap analysis, and the development of a climate risk and
vulnerability assessment with a focus on equity and climate justice.
H. For the 2025-2027 biennium, City Council accepted the remainder $280,000 of the allocation
(OPR 2025-0500) for Phase 2 of climate planning, which focused on ongoing community
engagement, policy development and prioritization, environmental justice review, and
integration into the PlanSpokane 2046 periodic update.
1
AGENDA
[Page 147]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
I.
In 2024, the Spokane City Council created the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board
(CRSB) by Ordinance C36557 to provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor, City
Council, and community on the actions necessary to achieve the community’s sustainability
and climate goals consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Action Plan,
environmental stewardship policies of the City as adopted by the City Council, and within the
requirements and parameters set forth in state law.
J. The CRSB serves as the Climate Policy Advisory Team in alignment with Commerce’s
guidance to assess climate-related hazards and local emissions, consider public input, and
provide goal and policy recommendations.
K. Outreach and public communication began in 2024 and continued throughout 2025 and into
2026 with online and in-person methods, a project website, community surveys, in-person and
virtual workshops, in-person and virtual focus groups, email updates, and online information
sharing through story maps, blog posts, social media, and regular project updates. Key
engagement activities reached over 3,300 Spokane residents.
L. The Tribal Engagement Workgroup (TEW) was launched to ensure that Indigenous voices
and knowledge systems were included climate planning and to inform the City’s 2026
Comprehensive Plan.
M. The Climate Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed as an interdisciplinary
committee of City divisions and departments to gather input and feedback throughout the
process on priorities, related work, and ideas to inform and shape the climate policies.
N. The draft final climate policies were developed, amended, and refined by the CRSB, CTAC,
TEW, and community engagement between August 2025 and January 2026.
O. The CRSB and Spokane Plan Commission hosted two joint special meetings to discuss
climate planning and integration into the Comprehensive Plan in October 2025 and January
2026.
P. The Draft Final Climate Policy Memo (Memo) provided on February 12, 2026 includes
revisions to and documentation of the draft final policies discussed at the joint meeting on
January 28, 2026. The Memo provides the draft policies for consideration by the CRSB at the
scheduled hearing on February 12, 2026.
Q. The draft final climate policies outlined in the February 12, 2026 Memo and corresponding
policy list include 97 policies aligned with the 11 climate sectors outlined by the WA
Commerce: Agriculture & Food Systems; Built Environment & Energy; Cultural Resources &
Practices; Economic Development; Emergency Management; Health & Well-being;
Ecosystems; Transportation; Waste Management; Water Resources; Zoning.
R. On February 12, 2026, the CRSB held a public hearing on the Draft Final Climate Policies
Memo, including taking of verbal testimony, and closed the public record on that date.
S. Public comment, as well as agency and department comments, received prior to the February
12, 2026 CRSB public hearing were included for consideration. On February 12, 2026, the
CRSB conducted its deliberations on this Memo and voted 12-0 to recommend to the Spokane
Plan Commission the following:
2 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 148]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
1. Recommend to the Spokane Plan Commission inclusion of the final climate policies
listed in the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft Final Climate
Policies” in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan.
T. During deliberations by the CRSB, recommendations were further made by vote on the
following additional request.
1. Adopt the Draft Final Climate Policy List with an additional amendment to add point
three to the draft Resolution in the packet to further recommend to the Plan
Commission to modify or supplement NE 11.4 to include the considerations in the
public comment received from Spokane Urban Nature (SUN) as attached (attached
as page 3 in the minutes).
U. Except as otherwise indicated herein, the CRSB recommends the final climate policies to the
Plan Commission with above referenced amendment to NE 11.4.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based upon review of the Packet materials, staff analysis and CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies,
which is incorporated into these findings, conclusions and recommendation, agency and public
comments received, and public testimony provided, the CRSB makes the following conclusions
for Climate Policy Integration in the 2026 periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive
Plan.
1. The Draft Final Climate Policies, as contained in the CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies Memo
are consistent with state law requirements, are designed to enhance community resilience,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prioritize environmental justice to avoid worsening
environmental health disparities.
2. The CRSB, as the Climate Policy Advisory Team for the climate planning element within the
City of Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan, evaluated and reviewed the draft climate policies and
recommends to the Spokane Plan Commission integration of the Final Climate Policies in the
2026 Periodic update.
RECOMMENDATION:
The CRSB recommends the Spokane Plan Commission include the final climate policies listed in
the February 12, 2026 memorandum titled “CRSB Draft Final Climate Policies” in the 2026
periodic update of the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan on a vote of 12-0.
The CRSB further recommends the Spokane Plan Commission consider the written comment
received from Kirsten Angell and attached to these findings and the hearing minutes. Specifically
the recommendation for consideration of amended language to NE 11.4 which calls for a “Forest
Inventory Database” in the Ecosystem section of the Climate Resilience Policy:
“Create and maintain an inventory of existing and potential natural lands and fish and
wildlife habitat, evaluated for their ecological and climate resilience values, using Best
Available Science. A Natural Area and Habitat Connectivity Network database in the city’s
geographic Information System would disseminate the information for decision makers
and the public in a usable, interactive format.”
3 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 149]
Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Recommendation
These Findings and Conclusions are prepared and signed pursuant to CRSB Rule 6.5 and
approved by a vote of 12 to 0 by the CRSB on the 12thd day of February, 2026.
______________________________________________
Brian G. Henning, Chair
Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board
Date:
4 of 4
AGENDA
[Page 150]
AGENDA
[Page 151]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Policies that meet the
Climate GMA
requirements
Supportive policies
Unique ID
Policy
Sector
MCPA_0055
Establish and maintain publicly accessible community gardens on
Agriculture &
city property, as appropriate, in partnership with local organizations Food Systems
to support traditional Indigenous food gardens and culturally
specific growing practices as well as to increase access to local and
culturally diverse food for all residents.
MCPA_0054
Incentivize rooftop and ground-level gardens, community
Agriculture &
composting, and food forest projects within new and existing
Food Systems
development to strengthen local food security and access to nature,
prioritizing access for renters, residents without private yards, and
overburdened communities.
MCPA_0021
Support farmers’ or public markets, fruit and vegetable stands, food Agriculture &
production services, small-scale farms, and other avenues for local
Food Systems
food production and access such as with simpler permitting
processes or financial incentives, as a means of local food security
and diversity in business opportunities.
MCPA_0058
Support culturally relevant programs and partnerships that offer
Agriculture &
educational resources for healthy cooking, community gardening,
Food Systems
mental and physical health, and other skills related to community
health and resiliency.
MCPA_0019
Incentivize and enable uses that provide healthy, affordable, and
Agriculture &
locally produced food in parts of the city with limited food access,
Food Systems
including by amending land use and zoning designations, as well as
updating code requirements.
MCPA_0057
Identify and designate areas that are suited for ongoing agricultural
Agriculture &
production, while also permitting smaller-scale urban agricultural
Food Systems
uses such as community gardens, home gardens, and small livestock
throughout the city, recognizing urban agriculture as a community
and economic asset that supports food security, local resiliency, and
public health.
MCPA_0059
Partner with food banks, farmers’ markets, and other organizations Agriculture &
to provide resources, services, and information to improve food
Food Systems
access.
MCPA_0053
Encourage the use of alternative and emerging agricultural tools and Agriculture &
practices that support regional resiliency to climate change, such as
Food Systems
hydroponics and regenerative farming.
AGENDA
[Page 152]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0066
Policy
Sector
Partner with energy providers, other regional partners, and state
Buildings &
regulators to offer incentives or rebates for property owners who
Energy
make energy-efficient improvements, such as heating, ventilating, air
conditioning and refrigerating installations, operations, and
maintenance, on the condition that cost savings are shared with
tenants.
MCPA_0065
Implement and support building and energy codes and policies
Buildings &
amendments that reduce energy and fossil fuel use, and air quality
Energy
impacts for existing and new residential, commercial, industrial, and
other buildings in a manner that equitably considers energy
transition cost and benefits for overburdened communities.
MCPA_0069
Encourage the development of heat mitigating roofs and other
Buildings &
passive cooling site and building features by exploring code updates Energy
and incentives in Downtown and other high intensity areas of the
city to reduce energy use and improve resilience.
MCPA_0070
MCPA_0068
MCPA_0067
Expand renewable energy production and storage opportunities
Buildings &
through code updates and incentives.
Energy
Regularly monitor progress and update interim targets for the City’s
Buildings &
net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal as set in municipal code.
Energy
Preserve and expand renewable energy sources and reduce energy
Buildings &
use, air quality impacts, refrigerant emissions, and potable water
Energy
consumption in City buildings and operations.
MCPA_0062
Protect, enhance, and restore ecosystems in order to support Tribal Cultural
rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non-
Resources &
consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and
Practices
materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change.
MCPA_0061
Protect and enhance sacred areas and cultural sites within the
Cultural
growing urban setting through collaboration with local Tribes,
Resources &
historians, organizations, and residents to identify features to be
Practices
protected.
MCPA_0063
Protect significant historic and cultural sites prone to floods or other Cultural
hazards worsened by climate change.
Resources &
Practices
MCPA_0009
Provide a range of financial and regulatory incentives to encourage
Cultural
the reuse, renovation, and preservation of historic structures while
Resources &
disincentivizing demolition.
Practices
AGENDA
[Page 153]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0073
Policy
Sector
Collaborate with colleges, schools, technical programs, labor
Economic
organizations, and other agencies to encourage the development of Development
an environmentally focused jobs pipeline that benefits
overburdened communities and supports a circular economy.
MCPA_0075
Incentivize brownfield redevelopment projects that incorporate
Economic
resilient and sustainable features through City investments and
Development
technical assistance, particularly in overburdened communities.
MCPA_0076
Support the long-term usability of commercial buildings in
Economic
economically disadvantaged areas through targeted investments
Development
and incentives such as technical assistance, grants, or loans for
revitalization of facades and storefronts, security and accessibility
improvements, and other renovations.
MCPA_0074
Support, incentivize, and encourage purchasing from businesses that Economic
primarily employ local people, use local materials, and produce and
Development
sell their products and/or services locally to preserve existing
businesses and reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled and Greenhouse
Gases.
MCPA_0080
Collaborate with Tribal partners to leverage traditional ecological
Ecosystems
management strategies for natural areas.
MCPA_0156
Identify, purchase, preserve, restore, and maintain existing and
Ecosystems
potential links between wildlife habitats, seeking to form a network
of wildlife habitats while partnering with regional, community, and
state agencies and programs.
MCPA_0146
Establish and support programs, codes, and standards that support
Ecosystems
the long-term health and maintenance of the urban canopy on
public and private lands, including public awareness campaigns,
incentives, and funding opportunities, prioritizing areas with high
heat risk and overburdened communities.
MCPA_0083
Implement programs, codes, and standards that increase aquatic
Ecosystems
and upland habitat resilience by protecting water quality, increasing
water residence time in streams, implementing natural landscaping
to slow, filter, and store stormwater, conserving water, protecting
groundwater, and keeping waters cool.
MCPA_0149
Provide educational resources and volunteer opportunities for
Ecosystems
environmental stewardship on City-owned property, including with
clean-up events for trails, parks, and swales, and the planting of
street and park trees.
AGENDA
[Page 154]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
Policy
Sector
MCPA_0093
Develop resilience hubs — community-serving facilities that are
Emergency
designed to support residents, coordinate communication, distribute Management
resources, and reduce carbon pollution while enhancing quality of
life — throughout the city, prioritizing investments in areas with
vulnerable and overburdened communities.
MCPA_0095
Collaborate with Tribes and Native organizations to facilitate and
Emergency
identify places where Tribal members and Indigenous people can
Management
interact before, during, and after emergencies that serve as clean air
and cooling centers, charging stations, and evacuation centers.
MCPA_0086
Work with Tribes and Native organizations to identify evacuation
Emergency
routes and tailored emergency management strategies addressing
Management
wildfire, flooding, and other extreme events.
MCPA_0091
Develop a comprehensive, communitywide wildfire resilience
Emergency
strategy that improves emergency response capabilities, promotes a Management
fire-adapted community, and fosters short- and long-term wildfire
recovery, while building community awareness of the strategy.
MCPA_0092
Provide residents living in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas
Emergency
information about fire prevention and Firewise best practices while
Management
applying WUI best practices to new development through building
code, ventilation, and landscaping provisions.
MCPA_0148
Work with community-based organizations to identify, update, and
Emergency
maintain emergency evacuation routes, locations, and strategies,
Management
focusing on neighborhood and block-level plans tailored to the meet
the needs of the most vulnerable residents.
MCPA_0088
Engage with community members and organizations to provide
Emergency
resources that help residents plan and practice actions that make
Management
evacuation quicker and safer.
MCPA_0150
Ensure timely emergency notifications for wildfire, smoke, flooding,
Emergency
and other extreme events that provide both digital and non-digital
Management
outreach materials in multiple languages.
MCPA_0089
Ensure redundancy in emergency routes accessible by multiple
Emergency
transportation modes including vehicular, non-motorized routes,
Management
and transit services to reduce transportation barriers to effective
evacuation under different climate hazard scenarios.
AGENDA
[Page 155]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0101
Policy
Sector
Support Tribes and Native organizations in strengthening
Health & Well-
community connectedness and social and economic vitality to help
being
communities improve their economic prosperity and resilience to
climate impacts, such as by prioritizing funding for Native-led centers
that host multi-generational knowledge sharing, recreation, and
health and wellness services.
MCPA_0100
Foster stronger community connectedness and economic vitality
Health & Well-
that helps improve economic prosperity and community resilience to being
climate impacts, such as through equitable investments in libraries,
parks, recreation programs, urban green space and ventilation
corridors, multimodal connections and other such areas,
prioritizing overburdened and vulnerable communities.
MCPA_0096
Allocate resources to help all community members, including low-
Health & Well-
income residents, in remaining in their homes during extreme
being
climate events, including extreme heat and wildfire smoke, through
infrastructure and services such as the installation of cooling devices
or high-quality portable air cleaners, utility bill assistance, or
community and Tribal partner collaborations and educational
opportunities.
MCPA_0139
Equitably expand the City's programming and park maintenance and Health & Wellpreservation activities to increase amenities that address comfort
being
and protection from extreme weather such as shade and drinking
fountains and improve safety, education, and community resources
at parks, prioritizing investments in the most vulnerable parts of
Spokane.
MCPA_0103
Provide all residents with an equitable opportunity to learn about
Health & Well-
climate impacts, influence policy decisions, and take actions to
being
enhance community resilience to promote environmental justice and
support physical and mental health and well-being.
MCPA_0098
Develop and implement an urban heat resilience strategy that
Health & Well-
includes land use, urban design, urban greening, and waste heat
being
reduction actions that benefit overburdened communities.
MCPA_0102
Allocate resources at a consistent and meaningful level for programs Health & Welland events focused on Spokane’s youth (18 and under) and their
being
specific needs for social and emotional health, and cultural
belonging.
MCPA_0111
Apply resilience-focused development standards in high-risk zones,
Zoning &
including the wildland–urban interface (WUI) and flood-prone areas. Development
AGENDA
[Page 156]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0113
Policy
Sector
Protect, restore, acquire, and maintain urban agricultural lands,
Zoning &
urban forests, critical areas, shorelines, habitats, and open spaces as Development
interconnected natural systems that provide flood protection, heat
reduction, and carbon sequestration benefits, including through
codes, capital investments, and regional partnerships.
MCPA_0110
Incorporate climate hazard risk and environmental justice criteria
Zoning &
and mitigation into land use and infrastructure planning before
Development
major land use plan or policy changes, or when siting, replacing, or
relocating community assets, such as transportation, civic facilities,
and parks.
MCPA_0157
Reduce impervious surfaces in the city, in areas of drainage concern Zoning &
mapped by the City, to address urban heat island mitigation, and
Development
promote groundwater recharge and infiltration.
MCPA_0107
Foster transit-oriented development and accessible neighborhoods
Zoning &
by increasing intensity around multimodal transportation options in Development
order to reduce VMT and GHG emissions and promote community
resiliency.
MCPA_0106
Prioritize infill development, while expanding, protecting, and
Zoning &
maintaining the City’s tree canopy, through zoning regulations and
Development
permitting processes.
MCPA_0105
Plan for and accommodate diverse, affordable, and attainable
Zoning &
housing types to meet demand while avoiding sprawl in order to
Development
decrease emissions and infrastructure costs and preserve open
space.
MCPA_0147
Designate neighborhood- and regional-scale mixed-use areas on the Zoning &
Land Use Plan Map and provide a compatible mix of housing,
Development
commercial uses, and activities to focus growth, and support
complete, walkable places.
MCPA_0151
Apply parking maximums and consider using parking pricing to
Zoning &
discourage solo driving and encourage shifts to off-peak travel or
Development
other transportation modes.
MCPA_0152
Develop and administer parking policies that encourage shared
Zoning &
parking, reduce excess parking, and reflect the high value of curb
Development
and street right-of-way.
MCPA_0125
Promote natural tree cover, built shade, and cooling infrastructure
Transportation
along new and existing sidewalks, streets, transit stops, and public
spaces to enhance resilience to extreme heat, prioritizing urban heat
islands and locations where populations susceptible to health
impacts gather.
AGENDA
[Page 157]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0116
Policy
Sector
Prioritize public transit expansion, frequency, capacity, reliability, and Transportation
coordinated land use and transportation planning that improves
service especially for transit-dependent populations and lowerincome and overburdened neighborhoods.
MCPA_0140
Alter traffic patterns and enhance neighborhood streets to provide a Transportation
complete transportation network for all users in line with the
Complete Streets Ordinance, ensuring equitable distribution of
innovation, access, choice, and options, and freight and emergency
access throughout the four seasons for people walking, biking, and
rolling, transit riders, and people driving motor vehicles.
MCPA_0117
Develop zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and incentives
Transportation
including E-bikes, prioritizing workplaces, lower-income residents,
and renters.
MCPA_0123
Design and site new and expanded roads, rail infrastructure, and
Transportation
water-crossing structures to minimize environmental impacts,
protect public access, and incorporate climate-resilient features such
as fish-friendly passage.
MCPA_0124
Improve street connectivity and walkability, including sidewalks and Transportation
street crossings, to support everyday mobility and access to
potential evacuation routes.
MCPA_0141
Transportation
Enhance and maintain sidewalks, trails, and low traffic stress bicycle
facilities to prioritize the safety of the most vulnerable road users
traveling by foot, bicycle and other adaptive or assistive devices.
MCPA_0122
Install updated stormwater controls on roadways when capital
Transportation
improvements are implemented and where surrounding
development is less likely to contribute stormwater improvements.
MCPA_0118
Maintain bicycle and pedestrian connectivity during construction of
Transportation
development or projects that block the right of way.
MCPA_0119
Improve active transportation and other multimodal types of
Transportation
transportation options in concurrency programs – both in
assessment and mitigation.
MCPA_0126
Support federal, state, and regional actions, and implement City
Waste
actions that align with, direct, and model zero waste principles and
Management
state goals in partnership with the regional solid waste management
system.
AGENDA
[Page 158]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0072
Policy
Sector
Support a circular economy that increases demand for reused and
Waste
recycled materials, reduces demand for new raw materials and their Management
embodied carbon emissions, and fosters community education and
participation through regulations, incentives, and collaboration.
MCPA_0129
Encourage and expand home and commercial composting to
Waste
increase waste reduction and diversion, reduce the generation and
Management
disposal of organic waste, and increase soil health.
MCPA_0127
Collaborate with regional and community partners to provide
Waste
equitable outreach and engagement and clear and consistent
Management
messaging around waste reduction (including reuse and repair),
recycling, and composting among homes and businesses.
MCPA_0128
Strengthen and expand programs that enable and incentivize reuse
Waste
and recycling of construction, deconstruction, and demolition
Management
materials and waste and the incorporation of such materials into
building and construction designs.
MCPA_0138
Encourage and support residents and businesses to optimally
Water Resources
manage rainwater, water use, and stormwater on their properties
such as through modeling practices on public properties, adopting
codes and standards that enable and encourage rain gardens,
drought tolerant plants, or permeable pavements.
MCPA_0134
Strengthen and implement a water conservation strategy that leads Water Resources
to decreases in household, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
water use citywide, commensurate with the true available capacity of
the City’s water supply and effects of a changing climate, including
expanded incentives for drought-tolerant, native plantings and the
use of innovative incentive, communication, and education
programs.
MCPA_0136
Develop, implement, and regularly review a comprehensive drought Water Resources
resilience strategy that factors in projected climate impacts and sets
action levels for different drought stages in municipal code.
MCPA_0132
Manage water resources for all users sustainably through a “One
Water Resources
Water” concept that manages all forms of water, including through
retaining rainwater strategies, smart irrigation, stormwater
management, preventative maintenance, water conservation,
infiltration and groundwater recharge, plant selection, landscape
management, utility rate structures, and other methods that respect
water rights regulations while supporting a resilient and effective
urban water system.
AGENDA
[Page 159]
Spokane CRSB 2/12/26 - Draft Final Climate Policies - Public Hearing Recommendations
Unique ID
MCPA_0135
Policy
Sector
Set and regularly monitor progress for short- and long-term targets
Water Resources
for water conservation goals set in municipal code.
MCPA_0133
Develop a program to allow municipal reclaimed water systems,
Water Resources
where feasible considering water rights, and allow onsite nonpotable water systems to reduce water demand in private-sector
commercial and residential buildings.
AGENDA
[Page 160]
AGENDA