Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Comprehensive Plan update: county outlines EIS alternatives, climate work and outreach; commissioners approve county-branded visual approach
Summary
County planning staff updated the Board of County Commissioners on the Comprehensive Plan 2046 outreach, EIS scoping and climate-resiliency work and presented a compromise on project branding that retains the Spokane County logo while allowing distinctive graphic headers for plan materials.
Planning staff presented an update on Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan (Vision 2046) process on May 19, describing outreach results, technical advisory committees, climate and resiliency work and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping and alternative-development schedule.
Scott (planning staff) summarized public engagement to date: multiple placemaking charrettes and rural community forums, six podcasts, two media interviews and roughly 1,100 subscribers on the project's interested-parties distribution list. Staff reported that attendance at in-person place-making events ranged from about a dozen to more than 100 (the larger turnout reflected specific local concerns), and that the most consistent community priorities included preservation of natural areas and trails, neighborhood amenities and off-road active-transportation networks.
On climate and resiliency, staff said they are working with Cascadia Consulting on hazard and vulnerability analysis (temperature increases, wildfire risk and streamflow changes) and that the state-created climate/resiliency element is informing the planning process. Planning staff noted projected regional changes — for example, temperature increases and more extreme heat days — as inputs for policy work.
The EIS process is underway: staff distributed a scoping notice and said scoping comments were due May 30. The county will assemble city and town UGA (urban growth area) requests and landowner letters of interest and score and map UGA polygons as part of the alternatives analysis. Scott told the board the county anticipates moving and reshaping UGAs rather than simply expanding the countywide total acreage, and said the board would see a range of draft alternatives at the June 16 strategic planning meeting.
On branding, staff acknowledged an initial draft visual identity had been circulated and that the board's 2016 county logo policy requires board approval for alternate departmental or program logos. Commissioners discussed options and agreed on a compromise: use the official Spokane County word mark/logo to maintain institutional clarity while permitting a project-specific graphic treatment (colorful headers and icons) for site materials and the public-facing web pages. One commissioner summarized the decision: "Case closed. Alright."
Ending: Staff will return to the board with draft EIS alternatives on June 16 and continue TAC and public engagement work through the summer; staff will implement the agreed county‑branded visual approach on the project website and materials.
