Nuts and Bolts and Lots of Paper

Okay, I know most people don’t geek out at the sight of Comprehensive Plans and the like- I’m weird that way. The thing is, this kind of document is what you’ll be dealing with if you have an issue and want to change how we build Shoreline. This bit is just the “Land Use Element Goals & Policies” and there are other planning documents for other “Elements”- Housing, Transportation, Parks, Utilities, etc. and Supporting Analysis for all those subjects.

Its first paragraph sets the stage well: “This Element contains the goals and policies necessary to support the city’s responsibility for managing land resources and guiding development through implementing regulations, guidelines, and standards. It establishes the framework for how the City should develop, and as such, it is closely linked to the other elements of the Plan. Land use patterns have a direct impact on the quality of life, personal comfort, convenience, and the safety of citizens within the City.”

We don’t operate in a vacuum. The cities must accommodate federal, state, and county laws and regulations, as you can see here: “This Land Use Element has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and is also consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies and with all other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Ithas also been developed to support and comply with federal clean water and clean air requirements, the Endangered Species Act, the state hydraulic code and other state and federal regulations aimed at protecting the natural environment.”

One thing I like about this is that it is written clearly, with little jargon except that required for its purpose. Any good reader can go in and find what they need.

Let’s say you are ticked off about how the creek behind your house disappears into a pipe and how bad that is for the environment. You could look up the Parks & Recreation Element, then look down to “Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policies: General” and you’d find

“PR2: Preserve, protect and enhance areas with critical or unique natural features -- such as stream corridors, wildlife habitats, shorelines and wetlands -- especially if endangered by development, and educate the public on the importance of stewardship through a variety of mechanisms.”

That may be enough to wrap a protest campaign around, or you may look for more policies and goals to reinforce your idea’s validity. These two look promising:

“PR6: Ensure that water bodies owned by the City in park settings are protected from degradation of water quality and that water quality remains a priority.

PR7: Utilize sound maintenance practices and design and development guidelines to ensure the careful stewardship of natural resources and habitat in the park system” Sure, your creek may not be city-owned, but PR6 and PR7 demonstrate concern for creeks in general.

Then if you look under the “Capital Facilities Element”, which includes surface water, you’d find policies like:

“Water and Wastewater CF35: Investigate water reuse and water conservation opportunities that:

> diminish impacts on water, wastewater, and surface water systems,

> promote the conservation or improvement of natural systems.

CF36: Encourage the use of ecologically sound site design in ways that enhance the provision of utility services through measures such as:

> using drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping to reduce water

consumption,

> using native vegetation in places such as natural or buffer areas to reduce

surface water or wetland impacts,

> promoting solar orientation on site to reduce energy consumption,

> reducing impervious surfaces or excessive run-off to maintain natural

drainage systems, and…”

Looks like a promising angle, since when a stream is put in a pipe it is an unnecessary addition to the storm water flow the system must be built to accommodate, whereas if the creek were returned to the surface in a naturalistic bed we wouldn’t have to build as much, and ‘daylighting’ the rest of the stream would certainly “promote the conservation or improvement of natural systems”!

And this one goes straight to the heart of your argument:

“CF41: Support local efforts to minimize inflow and infiltration and reduce excessive discharge of surface water into wastewater systems in order to

> reduce impacts on the wastewater system, and

> enhance wastewater system capacity.”

I’m certain if I looked more deeply I could find more goals and policies which, if rigorously followed, could help us reinforce the good and reduce the bad in our communities. It is always up to us to press our governments to fulfill their sweet-sounding, promising words. It is up to us to make sure our environment is not forgotten amid all the other clamoring priorities of the moment. And it is down to us, whether we waste it all or nurture and renew our home lands or just putter along making believe nothing need ever change. In the end, this is where we live.