Draft EIS Summary
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, public summary
Published December 18, 2025
[Page 1]
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.
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 of housing units, the City is also required to plan for housing by affordability bracket.
[Page 2]
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); and population, employment, and housing.
[Page 3]
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.
[Page 4]
Alternatives Summary
Same for all alternatives: 21,739 new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing units than present), and 25,157 new residents from 2022-2046. (This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022. Population is adjusted to a consistent 2022 base year.)
Alternative 1, Stay the Course: maintains the current comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in Downtown and Centers and Corridors. 63% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity at incomes above 80% of the median, but would NOT provide enough housing capacity at incomes less than 80% of the median. Studies 34,850 new jobs.
Alternative 2, Distributed & Balanced: updates the comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Allows more neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Simplifies the Land Use Plan. 59% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity affordable at all income levels. Studies 24,939 new jobs.
Alternative 3, Center City & Regional Hubs: updates the comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in downtown, regional hubs, and areas with the greatest investment in transit and transportation. Allows more neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Simplifies the land use plan. 59% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity affordable at all income levels. Studies 38,848 new jobs.
Note: 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.
Area median income as of 2025: $70,600 for a one-person household, $80,700 for a two-person household, $90,800 for a three-person household, $100,800 for a four-person household.
[Page 5]
Alternative Concepts: side-by-side concept maps of Alternative 1 (Stay the Course), Alternative 2 (Distributed and Balanced), and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs), showing key features and growth intensity. Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025. Use the slide view to see the maps.
[Page 6]
Ability to Meet Objectives
Alternatives 2 and 3 would better meet the objectives for the plan update than Alternative 1.
- Meet Periodic Update Requirements: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Accommodate Growth, Housing at All Affordability Levels: Alternative 1 More, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Accommodate Growth, Jobs: Alternatives 1 and 2 More, Alternative 3 Most.
- Clarify the Plan: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Simplify the Plan and Codes: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Protect Critical Areas: Alternative 1 More, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Fast-Track Desired Growth: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Alignment with Vision Statement: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
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), and the Division corridor (straddling Northwest and Northeast Spokane). Within these broad study areas, the EIS also mentions Neighborhood Council boundaries.
[Page 7]
Spokane Study Areas map. Use the slide view to see the map.
[Page 8]
Abbreviated Summary of Impacts (see Draft EIS for full context)
Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: impacts from construction (soil disturbance, erosion, water pollution, and soil contamination); increased pollution and rainfall runoff due to growth and increased hard surfaces. Alternative 1 has the highest impacts (more growth on undeveloped land).
Mitigation options: stormwater runoff best management practices; increased density (reduces sprawl); new climate policies and updated critical areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include updated stormwater controls, critical area buffer restoration, protecting tree canopy, and reviewing Spokane Municipal Code Section 17E.010 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area for additional protections, such as addressing demands on the aquifer as temperatures increase.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives see a net decrease in transportation emissions; emissions from non-transportation sources would be highest under Alternatives 1 and 3; differences among alternatives are small at the citywide scale.
Mitigation options: new climate policies in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include 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, and education on air pollutants.
[Page 9]
Plants and Animals. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: new development in currently vegetated areas, impacting fish and wildlife habitats; increased impervious surfaces affecting aquatic habitats (runoff, heat, less shade); 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.
Mitigation options: new climate policies and updated critical areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include more program resources for tree canopy cover, incentives for habitat conservation, land acquisition in key areas, adaptive management policies for critical areas and shorelines, and code that limits clearing and soil disturbance.
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form. 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.
Likely impacts: highest levels of growth in areas that are already higher intensity; greater development intensity over time due to infill; more middle housing types and ADUs; some tree, noise, shadow, view, and 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.
Mitigation options: Spokane Municipal Code regulations for land use, urban form, and historic preservation. Potential measures include applying cultural resources discovery policies to the full city limits, construction noise rules and other noise standards, additional development standards for light and shading, and investments to reduce heat and noise.
[Page 10]
Population, Employment, and Housing. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: some housing policy and code changes from the Housing Action Plan; more jobs in Northeast Spokane and Center City; inadequate housing capacity to 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.
Mitigation options: updates to the comprehensive plan 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 include a Rental Assistance Fund, a Public Development Authority, land banking, use of development agreements, minimum density requirements, incentives for affordable commercial tenant space, and other measures as detailed in DEIS section 3.5.3.
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives accommodate citywide growth targets; Alternative 1 has the highest impacts due to inadequate housing capacity for lower income bands (under 80% Area Median Income); Alternatives 2 and 3 are better aligned with state requirements and regional, county, and local plans.
Mitigation options: Alternatives 2 and 3 meet housing targets at all income levels and address other state requirements for the periodic update, including housing and climate planning.
[Page 11]
Transportation. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives would continue making pedestrian improvements, but Alternatives 2 and 3 may accelerate them; all alternatives would continue making bicycle improvements; Alternative 1 has the highest vehicle miles traveled per capita; Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have a slightly higher share of walking; all alternatives would have impacts on road intersection levels of service.
Mitigation options: planned roadway and transit improvements; the current transportation impact fee program. Potential measures include Transportation Demand Strategies to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking, biking, and telework; Transportation Systems Management and Operations and signal timing; and agency partnerships.
Public Services. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: increased demand for police, fire/emergency medical services, schools, parks, libraries, and solid waste. Alternative 1 would increase 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.
Mitigation options: the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and other policies support capital facilities and public services planning; an increased local sales and use tax to support a Public Safety Tax became effective April 1, 2025; new climate policies under Alternatives 2 and 3; a new Capital Facilities Plan under Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include impact fees for schools, parks, or fire; a parks fee-in-lieu program; parkland dedication opportunities in key locations; and partnerships for education and childcare spaces and parks and natural lands.
[Page 12]
Utilities. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: increased demand for utilities due to growth; increased concentration of utility users under Alternatives 2 and 3 (better efficiency, but potential upgrades needed for energy, water, and sewer); specific upgrades needed would vary by alternative based on location of growth.
Mitigation options: City water conservation programs; ongoing planning for water and wastewater systems to address growth and changing demand; regular energy planning with Avista. Potential measures include more local energy resources, energy-efficiency infrastructure, upgraded stormwater infrastructure, minimizing runoff, and protection of critical aquifer recharge areas.
Next Steps
The City of Spokane requested comments from the public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft EIS from December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026 (later extended to March 5, 2026). Written comments were directed to Tirrell Black, Assistant Planning Director, City of Spokane, 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201, PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org.
A series of public and agency workshops were planned during the Draft EIS comment period. 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.
Draft EIS Summary
PlanSpokane 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, public summary
Published December 18, 2025
[Page 1]
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.
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 of housing units, the City is also required to plan for housing by affordability bracket.
[Page 2]
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); and population, employment, and housing.
[Page 3]
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.
[Page 4]
Alternatives Summary
Same for all alternatives: 21,739 new housing units from 2022-2046 (about 21% more housing units than present), and 25,157 new residents from 2022-2046. (This is the 2020-2046 housing growth target minus the units already added from 2020 to 2022. Population is adjusted to a consistent 2022 base year.)
Alternative 1, Stay the Course: maintains the current comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in Downtown and Centers and Corridors. 63% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity at incomes above 80% of the median, but would NOT provide enough housing capacity at incomes less than 80% of the median. Studies 34,850 new jobs.
Alternative 2, Distributed & Balanced: updates the comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Allows more neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Simplifies the Land Use Plan. 59% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity affordable at all income levels. Studies 24,939 new jobs.
Alternative 3, Center City & Regional Hubs: updates the comprehensive plan and code. Focuses growth in downtown, regional hubs, and areas with the greatest investment in transit and transportation. Allows more neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Simplifies the land use plan. 59% of the City's total housing as single unit housing. Would provide enough housing capacity affordable at all income levels. Studies 38,848 new jobs.
Note: 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.
Area median income as of 2025: $70,600 for a one-person household, $80,700 for a two-person household, $90,800 for a three-person household, $100,800 for a four-person household.
[Page 5]
Alternative Concepts: side-by-side concept maps of Alternative 1 (Stay the Course), Alternative 2 (Distributed and Balanced), and Alternative 3 (Center City and Regional Hubs), showing key features and growth intensity. Source: City of Spokane, BERK, 2025. Use the slide view to see the maps.
[Page 6]
Ability to Meet Objectives
Alternatives 2 and 3 would better meet the objectives for the plan update than Alternative 1.
- Meet Periodic Update Requirements: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Accommodate Growth, Housing at All Affordability Levels: Alternative 1 More, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Accommodate Growth, Jobs: Alternatives 1 and 2 More, Alternative 3 Most.
- Clarify the Plan: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Simplify the Plan and Codes: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Protect Critical Areas: Alternative 1 More, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Fast-Track Desired Growth: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
- Alignment with Vision Statement: Alternative 1 Less, Alternatives 2 and 3 Most.
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), and the Division corridor (straddling Northwest and Northeast Spokane). Within these broad study areas, the EIS also mentions Neighborhood Council boundaries.
[Page 7]
Spokane Study Areas map. Use the slide view to see the map.
[Page 8]
Abbreviated Summary of Impacts (see Draft EIS for full context)
Earth, Water Quality, and Water Resources. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: impacts from construction (soil disturbance, erosion, water pollution, and soil contamination); increased pollution and rainfall runoff due to growth and increased hard surfaces. Alternative 1 has the highest impacts (more growth on undeveloped land).
Mitigation options: stormwater runoff best management practices; increased density (reduces sprawl); new climate policies and updated critical areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include updated stormwater controls, critical area buffer restoration, protecting tree canopy, and reviewing Spokane Municipal Code Section 17E.010 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area for additional protections, such as addressing demands on the aquifer as temperatures increase.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives see a net decrease in transportation emissions; emissions from non-transportation sources would be highest under Alternatives 1 and 3; differences among alternatives are small at the citywide scale.
Mitigation options: new climate policies in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include 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, and education on air pollutants.
[Page 9]
Plants and Animals. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: new development in currently vegetated areas, impacting fish and wildlife habitats; increased impervious surfaces affecting aquatic habitats (runoff, heat, less shade); 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.
Mitigation options: new climate policies and updated critical areas regulations in Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include more program resources for tree canopy cover, incentives for habitat conservation, land acquisition in key areas, adaptive management policies for critical areas and shorelines, and code that limits clearing and soil disturbance.
Land Use Patterns and Urban Form. 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.
Likely impacts: highest levels of growth in areas that are already higher intensity; greater development intensity over time due to infill; more middle housing types and ADUs; some tree, noise, shadow, view, and 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.
Mitigation options: Spokane Municipal Code regulations for land use, urban form, and historic preservation. Potential measures include applying cultural resources discovery policies to the full city limits, construction noise rules and other noise standards, additional development standards for light and shading, and investments to reduce heat and noise.
[Page 10]
Population, Employment, and Housing. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: some housing policy and code changes from the Housing Action Plan; more jobs in Northeast Spokane and Center City; inadequate housing capacity to 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.
Mitigation options: updates to the comprehensive plan 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 include a Rental Assistance Fund, a Public Development Authority, land banking, use of development agreements, minimum density requirements, incentives for affordable commercial tenant space, and other measures as detailed in DEIS section 3.5.3.
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives accommodate citywide growth targets; Alternative 1 has the highest impacts due to inadequate housing capacity for lower income bands (under 80% Area Median Income); Alternatives 2 and 3 are better aligned with state requirements and regional, county, and local plans.
Mitigation options: Alternatives 2 and 3 meet housing targets at all income levels and address other state requirements for the periodic update, including housing and climate planning.
[Page 11]
Transportation. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: all alternatives would continue making pedestrian improvements, but Alternatives 2 and 3 may accelerate them; all alternatives would continue making bicycle improvements; Alternative 1 has the highest vehicle miles traveled per capita; Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have a slightly higher share of walking; all alternatives would have impacts on road intersection levels of service.
Mitigation options: planned roadway and transit improvements; the current transportation impact fee program. Potential measures include Transportation Demand Strategies to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking, biking, and telework; Transportation Systems Management and Operations and signal timing; and agency partnerships.
Public Services. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: increased demand for police, fire/emergency medical services, schools, parks, libraries, and solid waste. Alternative 1 would increase 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.
Mitigation options: the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and other policies support capital facilities and public services planning; an increased local sales and use tax to support a Public Safety Tax became effective April 1, 2025; new climate policies under Alternatives 2 and 3; a new Capital Facilities Plan under Alternatives 2 and 3. Potential measures include impact fees for schools, parks, or fire; a parks fee-in-lieu program; parkland dedication opportunities in key locations; and partnerships for education and childcare spaces and parks and natural lands.
[Page 12]
Utilities. No significant adverse impacts expected with mitigation.
Likely impacts: increased demand for utilities due to growth; increased concentration of utility users under Alternatives 2 and 3 (better efficiency, but potential upgrades needed for energy, water, and sewer); specific upgrades needed would vary by alternative based on location of growth.
Mitigation options: City water conservation programs; ongoing planning for water and wastewater systems to address growth and changing demand; regular energy planning with Avista. Potential measures include more local energy resources, energy-efficiency infrastructure, upgraded stormwater infrastructure, minimizing runoff, and protection of critical aquifer recharge areas.
Next Steps
The City of Spokane requested comments from the public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft EIS from December 18, 2025, to February 18, 2026 (later extended to March 5, 2026). Written comments were directed to Tirrell Black, Assistant Planning Director, City of Spokane, 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201, PlanSpokane@spokanecity.org.
A series of public and agency workshops were planned during the Draft EIS comment period. 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.