Hearings Board rules in favor of developers on issue of whether Spokane complied with Growth Management Act and City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In a complicated ruling that criticized Spokane for having a “conflict” between its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) nonetheless sided today with the City and developers in a dispute over the legality of city ordinances opening up large scale retail development in the bitterly contested Southgate area. The Southgate controversy has mushroomed in the past year in response to development plans to locate more “big box” retail stores in the once pastoral area where south Spokane meets the Palouse Highway.
The central issues in Tuesday’s ruling by the board was a) whether Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan required a neighborhood planning process as part of the public participation program set forth in the Spokane Municipal code, and b) whether the City violated its Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act by approving Southgate development ordinances without having a neighborhood planning process in place.
On both counts, the hearings board’s answer was no.
The answer was “no” even though:
1) The hearings board found that the City comprehensive plan and its development regulations are in “conflict” because the “Comprehensive Plan directs a final determination as to the location of a center to be subject to the neighborhood planning process, yet the Spokane Municipal Code..only ‘encourages’ the persons proposing site specific amendments to address these through the neighborhood planning process.” and,
2) While the “City Council’s final determination to locate a center is..dependent on the neighborhood planning process, which is defined in the Comprehensive Plan, but was not available to the neighborhood groups because of a lack of City funding.”
In other words, the public participation process was thwarted in this case because the City didn’t have the funds to support the neighborhood planning process. But because the City did provide opportunities outside the unfunded neighborhood planning process, the Board concluded that the City had actually fulfilled the substantive requirement for public participation.
“Given the facts that there was no adopted neighborhood plan or a neighborhood process in place,” the Board ruled, “[Comprehensive Plan section] LU 3.2 is moot.”
Moreover, the Board noted: “Given that there was no process in place to practice the directive found in LU 3.2 for a neighborhood planning process, the specificity discussed at the [City-convened] workshop, and based on the timing of the workshop prior to the City Council’s adoption of Ordinance Nos. C34261, C34256, and C34257, the ‘neighborhood planning process’ may very well have taken place. We must remember that the neighborhood planning process does not dictate a particular result.”
The convoluted reasoning of the Hearings Board’s ruling did not persuade Center for Justice attorney Rick Eichstaedt who, along with Futurewise legal director Robert Beatty, argued on behalf of the neighborhood leaders, the Southgate Neighborhood Council, the Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane and the Futurewise organization.
“The simple fact is that the Comprehensive Plan says to do it [neighborhood planning] and they didn’t,” Eichstaedt said. “And I think the Hearings Board got it dead wrong.”
“The Hearings Board really missed the ball on this decision,” Eichstaedt added, “the Comprehensive Plan clearly requires neighborhood planning and it is undisputed that it did not occur. It does not matter that the City lacked funds, time, or that they consulted with the neighborhood in other ways. Neighborhood planning was a prerequisite to amending the comprehensive plan and the City should not have acted until this occurred.”
Eichstaedt said that CFJ will consult with its clients in the controversy, including the Southgate Neighborhood, to decide whether to appeal today’s decision and, if so, where to file the appeal.
The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has yet to rule on two other elements of the Southgate challenge that the Center has crafted along with attorneys for Futurewise on behalf of the citizens and organizations challenging the proposed development. Those issues involve alleged non-compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and a legally required planning provision known as a capital facilities plan.
