Controversy over the draft Shoreline Master Plan's impact on property rights dominated the July 19th Burien City Council Meeting.
Though city staff presented relatively narrow revisions of the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP), citizen comments prior to the presentation focused broadly on the ecological function of Burien's coastline and Lake Burien.

John Upthegrove drew attention to both sides of the debate about allowing public access to Lake Burien. Although the lake itself is, by law, public, it is currently surrounded by private property.
"What does a parent tell little Johnny when he asks why he can't swim in the lake?" he asked. On the other hand, he added, it would be impossible to control who comes and goes around the lake if the city built a lakeshore park.

Public access would threaten the fragile ecology of Lake Burien, Don Warren asserted. He argued that invasive species are often introduced to bodies of water by boats that have been used in affected waters.
Clark Mounsey invoked the city staff's "no net loss" ecological policy, saying that the interests of all parties, including property owners, the community and local wildlife, should be taken into account in the decision making process.
"How's Sammy [the Salmon] going to feel about this?" he queried.

City Manager Mike Martin noted that the proposed SMP does not change current policy, which requires subdivisions with five or more lots to provide public access to bodies of water.

Several attendees also cautioned against excessive regulation of property owners on Three Tree Point. "The residents of Three Tree Point are peerless stewards," Tim Fahey said, noting that he has observed excellent underwater conditions while scuba diving around the point.
"You can't find litter anywhere on Three Tree Point," Tammy Michaels agreed.

Following the public comment portion of the meeting and a brief presentation on the city's Transportation Improvement Plan, city planners Scott Greenberg and David Johanson shared recent changes to the SMP. Johanson said that revisions were meant to make the document "more user-friendly."

Perhaps the most significant alteration was the removal of "non-conforming language," which had previously been used to describe structures that do not meet the SMP's conditions.

Several restrictions on reconstruction had also been struck from the document. Construction work that extends beyond the original footprints of structures will be dealt with under existing regulations. Additionally, residents may maintain and repair existing bulkheads.
City planners clarified policies on shoreline property vegetation, distinguishing between areas of vegetation management, where property owners must protect existing plant life, and vegetation enhancement areas, where further vegetation should be added to increase ecological integrity.
In some cases, property owners might be required to ask the city for permission before altering the vegetation on their property.
City council members, a few self-described spontaneous gardeners, balked at this proposition.
"They can't change their landscaping?" Kathy Keene asked.

Johanson assured them that "it's as simple as checking in with us," but Councilman Gordon Shaw asserted that many property members will refuse to do so.

"I hate to see us pass legislation that's going to make significant portions of the community lawbreakers," he said.
Waterfront homeowners have earned the right to landscape however they see fit, Gordon Block agreed. He suggested that the city issue vegetation recommendations rather than regulations.

Councilwoman Lucy Krakowiak expressed concern that the public will not find the SMP palatable, saying she would like more opportunities for citizens to "put their fingerprints on this document."

Property rights aside, Deputy Mayor Rose Clark lamented the failure of scientists and ecologists who have appeared before the council to provide information she perceives as useful.
"We're on our own," she said.