Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Trail completion in doubt

State shoreline rules complicate city plans

A state determination barring the construction of new trails along some portions of the Spokane River could cause further headaches in the two-decade effort to complete the popular Centennial Trail.

The 37-mile route, which links Riverside State Park to Lake Coeur d’Alene, has a two-mile gap between Riverfront Park and the T.J. Meenach Bridge on the south side of the state park.

This week, Greenstone Corp. President Jason Wheaton told the Spokane City Council that the company is committed to completing the trail through Kendall Yards, the housing and commercial development west of Monroe Street along the river.

But north of Kendall Yards, the final trail route remains uncertain and could head into natural areas that require a 200-foot buffer between the river and most development – including trails.

The shoreline plan approved by the Spokane City Council in 2008 would allow a trail to be built parallel to the river, even in natural areas. But the state Department of Ecology, which must sign off on the rules, earlier this year responded that exceptions should not be made for trails in natural areas.

Acting Planning Director Jo Anne Wright said the state is listening to the city’s concerns about the trail.

“We’re trying to find some alternative language that will make sure we’re meeting the intent of our shoreline act,” Wright said. “There has not been any final decision.”

Washington requires that new shoreline laws must result in no net loss of “ecological function” along waterways. The state argues that trails can have significant impact on habitat – especially when they run parallel to a shoreline.

Some council members said they are concerned that a compromise could force the final path of the trail to be attached to Pettet Drive – the route most people know as Bloomsday’s Doomsday Hill. They argue that that route would discourage use.

Councilman Richard Rush said the trail should be separated from roads.

“That’s what our community should be holding out for,” Rush said.

Although the state has questioned some of the city’s rules, it has mostly praised the shoreline plan.

Under the new regulations, most shorelines would gain greater protections from development. City laws approved in the 1970s bar construction of new buildings within 50 or 100 feet of shorelines, depending on the location. New buffers in some places would extend as far as 200 feet. The areas with the most significant changes – Latah Creek and locations downstream from downtown – would have construction buffers that will increase from 100 to 200 feet.

Another issue that remains unsettled is a construction buffer on a piece of land co-owned by John Pilcher, the city’s chief operating officer under Mayor Dennis Hession.

Mayor Mary Verner vetoed the city’s shoreline plan early last year because the council amended it to shorten the proposed 200-foot construction buffer to 100 feet on a portion of Pilcher’s property along Latah Creek. The council, however, overrode Verner’s veto.

Since that time, the council has changed, and members say they likely will enact the state’s final recommendations.

“I don’t see why one particular person in Latah Valley should be allowed 100 feet,” said Councilwoman Amber Waldref. “It looks like – as someone who is new to the council – that this was made to benefit one particular landowner.”

Pilcher said that given his former position as the top unelected official at City Hall, he understands concerns about special treatment. But he said he tried to be public about his opposition and has used the same process any property owner has the right to follow.

The property is on the east side of the creek – just across the water from a proposed U.S. Highway 195 interchange at Cheney-Spokane Road.

State officials argue that the channel along Latah Creek sometimes naturally shifts, and that the zone where that could happen on Pilcher’s land is “quite extensive.”

“A buffer reduction may unnecessarily endanger future development,” Department of Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant wrote Verner in a letter dated Feb. 1.

But Pilcher said the shore along his property has been manipulated many times over the years for highway and railroad work, and by government workers dumping pieces of old roadway along the shore. He said experts he’s hired believe that Latah Creek is unable to meander along his parcel.

Pilcher already submitted plans to build an 88-home development on the 45 acres – thus vesting the land under the current 100-foot buffer. Pilcher said he’s fighting the regulations because he believes the state is misinterpreting the law and the science.

“I’d like to see the right outcome,” Pilcher said.

Wright said the state has informed the city that it will study Pilcher’s property again before a final shoreline plan is approved.

“They just want to make sure that the science they used before is correct,” Wright said.