Spokane County outlines placemaking priorities, proposes consolidated land‑use categories as EIS scoping opens

At a Spokane County public workshop, county staff and consulting teams presented a placemaking-driven approach to the county s comprehensive plan update and opened the scoping period for an environmental impact statement that the consultants said runs through May 30, with a virtual EIS meeting scheduled for May 7.

A Spokane County staff member said the update is required under the Growth Management Act and reminded attendees that "we have to be done by the end of 2026," noting the state legislature gave counties in this group an extra six months to finish the plan.

The consultants framed the effort around "placemaking" principles intended to guide where and how new development happens in urban growth areas. Riley, a consultant with Cascadia Consultants, summarized the climate and hazard context that the plan should address: "wildfire and wildfire smoke are increasing and affecting communities," and added inland flooding, stream temperature changes, higher temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns are on the team—s risk list.

Bob Mayford, partner with Maker's Architecture, read a draft vision for the county's urban lands: "Spokane County's urban or suburban lands are a mix of vibrant and connected communities. They feature integrated parks, trails, natural areas, and civic gathering places, a mix of housing types, and an accessible pedestrian friendly neighborhood center." Mayford and other presenters tied that vision to a set of specific policy and code ideas intended to shape future development.

Key policy concepts the team described include:

- Street connectivity and block standards: adopt "maximum block size" standards and require through‑block connections (alleys, trails, shared streets) on large sites so mixed‑use areas have smaller blocks (examples given were no more than about 300 feet between streets in mixed‑use zones, with flexibility such as a 500‑foot street distance allowed if 300‑foot pedestrian/trail connections are provided).

- Trail requirements: code standards to expand trail networks in new subdivisions; presenters proposed formulas such as requiring 1 foot of trail for every 3 feet of subdivision perimeter (example: a 10‑acre subdivision with a 2,600‑foot perimeter would require 880 feet of trail).

- Park orientation: design parks so they are visible and activated by adjoining homes and streets; a model code example said at least 60% of a park—s perimeter should be bounded by streets or dwelling units that face the park.

- Streetscape and tree canopy: minimize pavement widths where feasible, provide street trees and detached sidewalks, and use design variations (alleys, woonerfs, on‑street parking patterns) to calm traffic and improve pedestrian comfort.

- Housing mix and form: encourage a range of housing types (accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, low‑ and mid‑rise apartments) so neighborhoods can meet different life‑stage needs; presenters described "low rise" as roughly 3–4 stories and "mid rise" as roughly 5–8 stories and said allowable form should depend on context.

On land‑use mapping, the team proposed consolidating multiple mixed‑use and commercial designations into fewer umbrella categories (for example, combining several mixed‑use designations into a single "mixed‑use village" category) and creating a new "neighborhood" designation to allow greater flexibility on large, underdeveloped sites inside the current urban growth area (UGA). The presenters said the change would rely on clearer purpose statements, locational criteria and implementing zones rather than dense lists of separate future‑land‑use labels.

The workshop included examples from other jurisdictions (Liberty Lake, Post Falls, Carnation, Bozeman, Ellensburg) illustrating streets, trails, parks and mixed housing as precedents for the suggested policies. Presenters also emphasized integrating environmental features into neighborhood design (maintaining trees, treating stormwater, avoiding floodplains and using firewise practices) so natural systems become community amenities rather than leftover constraints.

On the planning process and schedule, Matt, identified in the meeting as the consultant "logic manager for the consultant side," described next steps: county staff will finish an existing‑conditions analysis for the steering committee by mid‑May, the consultant team will develop development alternatives in May–June, and the draft EIS work is planned for mid‑summer through the fall (July–September). "The scoping period for the EIS... starts today, goes through May 30, and there's gonna be a, an EIS meeting on May 7," Matt said.

Presenters also encouraged public engagement: attendees could complete a visual preference survey via posters or an online QR code, leave written comments and review materials on the project website. The presenters emphasized that some code changes will be required regardless of EIS outcomes because state law has changed and the county must make its plan consistent with those requirements.

No formal legislative votes or ordinance adoptions occurred at the workshop; the event functioned as a public‑engagement and scoping step in the comprehensive‑plan and EIS process.

The county and consultant team asked attendees to provide comments during the scoping period and indicated further public review opportunities when the draft EIS and mapped alternatives are published later in the year.