Spokane planning staff propose clearer language and a nimble fund as parks chapter is rewritten

At a Planning Commission subcommittee meeting in Spokane, city planning staff reviewed proposed updates to the comprehensive plan’s parks and recreation chapter and highlighted several changes they plan to present to the full commission and the Park Board. The discussion focused on simplifying technical language (including replacing the term “pedestrian” with more people-focused phrasing), clarifying the chapter’s relationship to the Preserve and Play parks master plan, and creating funding tools to let the city acquire or protect parkland promptly when opportunities arise.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan guides long-term decisions about where parks and open space are provided, how the city prioritizes investment, and what projects are eligible for state or federal funding. Changes to wording, cross-references and implementation tools can affect how staff and elected officials prioritize park acquisition, river access improvements and projects in under-resourced neighborhoods.

Planning staff said the update is an update and not a wholesale replacement of the plan, and that the parks chapter must align with other recently completed work. "So that being said, today is really all about parks and rec," a planning staff member said while introducing the chapter review. Staff described the parks chapter as a policy framework that should guide the parks department's own master planning and programming, while remaining concise and usable by staff and the public.

Language and framing: Several participants pressed staff to use less technical, more human-centered language. One committee member recommended rewording policy references to say "connections for people walking and biking" rather than the single term "pedestrian connections." Another participant recommended changing terms such as "pedestrian amenities" to phrasing like "paths and trails for people to walk." Planning staff said they will consider those rewordings across chapters while noting that some technical terms may be required in transportation and funding chapters for grant or regulatory purposes.

Relation to the Parks master plan: Staff emphasized that the new Preserve and Play parks master plan is an important implementation-level document that should be referenced in the comprehensive plan chapter, but should not replace the comp plan’s policy-level guidance. The master plan, staff noted, is a 10-year implementation document the parks department will update more frequently; the comprehensive plan should instead set the higher-level vision that guides those updates.

Shorelines and legal constraints: Staff reminded the group that shorelines are governed separately under state shoreline requirements and that the shoreline chapter was last updated recently and likely will not be revised in this round. "It's mandated separately," staff said of the shorelines chapter, noting coordination with the state Department of Ecology would be required for substantive format or content changes.

Equity and geographic gaps: The subcommittee discussed placing explicit language in the parks chapter to address geographic gaps in park provision and to prioritize investment in underserved areas. Staff identified a policy in the draft that now reads, in part, "address geographic gaps in park provision," and said they will revise the policy to include implementation cues such as prioritizing investment in areas underserved by the park system and using data and community input to locate gaps.

Funding and an Opportunity Fund: A recurring topic was funding and the need for nimbleness when land becomes available. Staff described the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process as a recurring requirement and said some draft policies that simply restate required processes do not add value. Several participants suggested creating or strengthening an "opportunity" or acquisition fund so the city has resources on hand to purchase parkland quickly when it becomes available. Planning staff said they will consider language that emphasizes financial nimbleness and a standing funding mechanism to act quickly on acquisition opportunities.

Trails, river access and businesses: The committee discussed river access and how improvements might mesh with neighborhood businesses and recreation. Staff and participants used kayak put-in points and examples of stairs or tie-offs to local restaurants as concrete examples of enhancing access without compromising shoreline protections. Staff noted many shoreline uses will require permits and that the shoreline regulatory process can limit some types of on-water commercial uses, but that access improvements such as stairs or permitted put-ins can be explored.

Other edits and implementation: Staff reviewed several draft policy edits and suggested deletions, including removing redundant policies that restate existing legal requirements (for example, a policy that simply says the city will adopt a CIP each year). Staff also flagged cross-chapter items—trails, maintenance, funding and volunteer stewardship—and said they will coordinate with the parks department, the Park Board and other planning chapters (notably transportation, natural environment and governance) before presenting the revised chapter to the full planning commission.

What’s next: Staff said they will post an updated draft online that incorporates subcommittee feedback, add cross-references to the Preserve and Play master plan where appropriate, and coordinate with the parks department and Park Board on items that fall within the parks department’s purview. The shoreline chapter will be left unchanged for this update cycle; broader changes tied to the state shoreline process were deferred.

Ending: The subcommittee’s comments centered on making the parks chapter clearer and more actionable: more human-centered language, explicit attention to geographic gaps and equity, and implementation language that gives staff financial tools to act when critical parkland becomes available.