Wedged into Monday night’s marathon city council meeting was a tempestuous debate and an important vote on the city’s shorelines rules. Lindsay Arnold returns to the scene to try to set the facts straight.
Editor’s Note: When John Pilcher, Spokane’s former Chief Operating Officer stood before the city council last Monday night and accused unnamed officials of members of playing “Chicago-style politics,” in advocating for land use restrictions on streamside property along Latah Creek in south Spokane, the resulting fury and comedy he unloosed tended to obscure a larger and more important story. When order was eventually restored the council voted to approve a key update to its Shoreline Master Plan that capped an extraordinarily detailed and public process balancing private and public demands and interests in the city’s riparian areas. One of those who testified in support of the bulk of the new rules was Lindsay Arnold, a CFJ intern who spoke on behalf of the Spokane Riverkeeper. Here’s Lindsay’s take on the value of Monday’s vote, and much of the confusion sowed by those who testified against the adoption of the new rules.
By Lindsay Arnold
Spokane’s distiniction of becoming the first of the five largest cities in Washington, including Seattle and Tacoma, to complete an updated Shoreline Master Plan is credited to a model of collaboration between the city and the Department of Ecology. Spokane city officials and Ecology worked diligently and sought ample public input to create a plan that both protects the shoreline environment and the local community’s interest in development and recreation. 
The Shoreline Management Act in Washington mandates that cities update their shoreline plans at regular intervals. The Act lays out a framework and specific items that the city must address in updating its plans, but gives the city flexibility in how it wants to address those issues. The city submitted its plan to the Department of Ecology, which required certain changes to the plan so that it would meet the requirements of the law. Recommended changes were included that the city could accept or deny. At the council meeting, the city accepted most of Ecology’s changes and added some new language regarding trails that it anticipates Ecology will accept.
Although the Spokane Riverkeepr supported the final plan as adopted, it’s clearly important to clear up some misconceptions that arose during the City Council meeting:
Different uses for different environments: The Shoreline Master Plan is not a one-size-fits-all approach to shoreline management. The shorelines of the city are divided into different categories, or “Shoreline Environmental Designations,” based on the existing environment (such as the most pristine “Natural Environment” to different urban environments) and then the city decides what uses are permitted in those different designations.
One source of confusion at the city council meeting was the erroneous assertion, made repeatedly by critics, that a shoreline buffer (that portion of the shoreline that must remain undeveloped) in the “Natural Environment” is the same as for more urban environments. For instance, one gentleman asked whether a 200-foot buffer on the natural areas of Latah Creek would therefore lead to a finding that the Centennial Trail by Riverside Park is a “non-conforming use.” The answer to that rhetorical question is, “no,” and no because Riverfront Park is an urban environment next to the Spokane River, the buffer along the Park wouldn’t change.
Under terms of the Shoreline Management Act, shoreline buffers are not arbitrary. The buffers are created using accepted sciencific methods to determine what will protect the environment and the life and property of those that live along the river.
Along Latah Creek, for example, a shoreline expert looked at how the creek had “migrated” over time, meaning that natural events had changed the course of the river at various times. The is called a “channel migration zone.” Building in a channel migration zone means that property could end up flooded or underwater if changes course. Because of this–the creek’s well documented history of dramatic and, at times, highly destructive flooding–land along the Latah Creek requires a larger buffer than land outside a channel migration zone.
The Pilcher property: A previous city council vote had given John Pilcher’s development company a 100-foot buffer for his Latah Creek property as an exception to the required 200 foot buffer. The Department of Ecology rejected this 100-foot buffer because the land was in a channel migration zone and highly susceptible to erosion. In other words, Ecology concluded that the 100-foot buffer would violate the state law. To give a 100-foot buffer would damage the ecology of the shoreline as well as endanger any structures built in that area. The last minute push on Pilcher’s part to submit his own expert data was dismissed by the council because, as the Department of Ecology’s expert pointed out, “Showing 2 aerial photographs does not constitute an analysis or best available information . . . if Dr. Buchanan offered data to refute my analysis, then we would have something to discuss.” Ultimately, the city voted to accept Ecology’s language requiring the Pilcher property to have a 200 foot buffer.
Shoreline buffers are not a “taking” of personal property: Although the 5th Amendment states that no one may be deprived of property without just compensation, the U.S. Constitution allows state and local governments to limit private property activities provided it’s for a legitimate public benefit and they do not deprive the landowner of all reasonable use of the property. Creation of state shoreline buffers has not been considered an unreasonable use.
Trails in the “Natural Environment”: The guilding light of the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Plan is “no net loss of shoreline.” One area that is of further concern is allowing trails along the shoreline in “Natural Environments.”
Ecology resolved that trails parallel to the river should not be allowed in the “Natural Environment” because the damage to these pristine environments could not be minimized and thus a loss of shoreline would occur. The city added language that would allow trails in these environments as long as they were in compliance with restrictions such as limiting width to 10 feet across and using impervous paving. The Spokane Riverkeeper believes these trails should only be allowed using old railroad tracks or other “existing grade.” The city voted to adopt it’s language despite the Riverkeeper’s contention that this is against the language in the Act.
Despite the Spokane Riverkeeper’s position that new trails shouldn’t be created through the untouched shoreline, the overall process should be considered a success due to the level of public participation, agency and local government cooperation and the shared goal of protecting our shorelines.
–CFJ
