Spokane board vets land‑use, canopy and transit policies as part of climate plan
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board reviewed proposed land‑use, resilience and transportation policies aimed at reducing greenhouse‑gas emissions, protecting tree canopy and aligning land use with transit; consultants warned VMT analysis may prompt edits and members pressed for clearer jurisdictional scope and stronger canopy protections.
The Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board on Nov. 13 reviewed a package of draft land‑use, resilience and transportation policies intended for Spokane’s comprehensive plan.
Chair (Climate Resilience and Sustainability Board) opened the meeting by thanking staff and consultants and saying, “The packet that we got today, the memos were really, I thought, really well done.” Consultants from Burke then walked members through goals and policies intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase housing diversity and protect natural systems.
Consultants proposed three greenhouse‑gas land‑use policies: emphasize diverse, affordable and attainable housing to avoid sprawl; balance infill with protections for the city’s tree canopy; and prioritize transit‑oriented development in places served by transit. The consultants said the language removes an explicit reference to the regional "urban growth area" in order to broaden the goal but left open the option to address regional cooperation elsewhere in the plan.
Board members pressed on jurisdictional scope. One member noted that urban growth areas are joint planning areas under Washington’s Growth Management Act and argued the plan should either explicitly include them or make clear how the city will coordinate with county partners and the Planning Commission. Consultants said the city’s land‑use chapter and local governance language include regional collaboration tools and suggested the CRSB could flag separate policies addressing intergovernmental coordination.
The tree canopy and cooling discussion drew particular scrutiny. Members asked for stronger verbs (for example, “increase” instead of “maintain”), and one member urged exploring ordinances or incentives to curb the common practice of removing mature trees when homeowners redevelop lots. The packet already includes a referenced 30% tree‑canopy goal for some elements of the plan; consultants said that language and related preservation/restore actions were added to response to earlier feedback.
On transportation, consultants recommended combining vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) reduction and zero‑emission vehicle support under a single GHG goal that emphasizes connected, equitable options: public transit, active transportation and zero‑emission vehicles. They cautioned that the ongoing VMT assessment and Transportation Commission input could require edits to policy wording.
What’s next: consultants said updated policy language reflecting today’s comments will be circulated in advance of upcoming meetings; the CRSB will continue policy review in December and is slated to make final recommendations ahead of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and a potential CRSB vote in February. Because no quorum was present on Nov. 13, the group took no formal actions.