The City of Sammamish is being bullied by waterfront landowners, and is in danger of preparing a Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) that will not meet the minimum requirements of the Department of Ecology.

That is the opinion of Joanna Buehler, the founder of Save Lake Sammamish, a group with 500 members in the Puget Sound area that concerns itself with environmental and wildlife issues relating to Lake Sammamish and its watershed.

Buehler has been a close observer of the SMP process in Sammamish, Issaquah and Bellevue, and is concerned that policy makers on the Plateau have contributed to an SMP process that has been confrontational, uninformed, and is now moving further away from the stated goal of ecological protection as outlined in the Shoreline Management Act.

As a resident of the Timberlake Park neighborhood on Lake Sammamish, Buehler has been involved in the City of Issaquah’s SMP process as a resident, and is full of praise for that city’s handling of what has been a volatile issue elsewhere.

“There seems to be a disconnect between what’s happening in Sammamish and Bellevue and what’s happening in Issaquah,” she said. “More than a year ago the City of Issaquah sent out letters to all the landowners that would be affected, explaining the process and the issues that would be involved. It was about education. They sat down and talked, and educated people on issues on the waterfront and what the process is required to accomplish. Nobody felt threatened.”

This is in stark contrast to the SMP meetings at Sammamish City Hall, which have been characterized by heated and critical public submissions from landowners, fearful that the Department of Ecology and the council were moving to compromise their right to develop their properties.

At a council meeting last month, Boyer Halvorsen, who has regularly addressed the council during SMP discussions, said that “the city should not have employees who are pushing a radical environmental agenda.” He was referring to developmental restrictions which have been placed on his property, in his mind without legitimate basis. In previous meetings Halvorsen has said that the city was interfering with citizens’ right to develop their property.

In challenging restrictions to shoreline development, many homeowners have claimed that there was not sufficient scientific proof to support many of the environmental protections, such as buffer zones.

At Tuesday night’s meeting of the council, Peter Scontrino, who owns a property on Pine Lake, said that “as I read the science, I am not convinced that buffers will have much of an effect on water quality.”

Later, Reid Brockway referred to the “so-called science on buffer width.” Brockway was critical of a five page memorandum on lake shore vegetation and its role in protecting lake ecology, prepared by environmental consultant ESA Adolfson for the city.

Brockway felt that these explanations were not suitable for policy direction, and said that “the figures are widely disparate.” “Nor is this surprising when you consider all the variables of buffer activity.”

A comment last month by councilor Lee Fellinge suggested that that the burden of proof was being placed upon environmental protection rather than development, when he said “before you restrict property rights you want to have strong data as to why.”

Buehler described claims that there was no science to support the effectiveness of buffers as “absolute baloney.”

“This is a red herring being used by people who are ignorant of the science,” she said. “It’s the same process that the tobacco companies used to deny that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer, and they managed to keep it a controversial debate right up until the minute they were forced to admit their liability and make settlement payment in court. You hear the same argument from those who deny that climate change is happening, despite 99 percent of reputable scientists telling us that it is.”

At Tuesday night’s meeting, councilor Mark Cross said that he hoped the city would be careful to adequately protect the lake’s function as a salmon habitat, and that there was reputable information available on how best to do this.

“At the federal and state level, and at the University of Washington, there has been a considerable amount of analysis on salmon and what they need to thrive and survive,” he said. Cross continued by saying that studies had showed that vegetation on banks helped preserve the integrity of the shoreline and provided both shelter and food for growing salmonids. Cross has been responsible for some of the few vocal appeals on behalf of lake’s ecosystem during the SMP meetings.

“There are studies being done,” he said. “We need to reference them in our SMP. We need a way to have a continuous vegetated buffer that extends down into the lake.”

Later in the week, Cross told The Reporter that he was disappointed in the how the city’s SMP process had been designed, saying that when statements were made by homeowners, on a perceived lack of science or other claims, “there hasn’t been a decided attempt by the Mayor to ask staff to respond or comment.”

“There has been a lot of heated testimony, but not much opportunity for the science to be presented,” he said.

Buehler said that Beaver Lake and Pine Lake had benefited historically from their classification as essentially wetlands, offering them protections of buffers between 50 and 100 feet. This, and a Lake Improvement District set up and paid for by Beaver Lake residents in times gone by, was “one of the only reasons the lake hasn’t gone eutrophic.” “There is very good scientific evidence that 50 feet is the minimum buffer you should provide to protect ecological function.”

The city’s policy direction for Lake Sammamish at present favors a a buffer of 45 feet which can be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet with additional restoration work.

On Pine and Beaver Lake, the policy direction provides for 80 percent tree retention within 45 feet, and a 15 foot shoreline enhancement area, reducible to 5 feet.

Tim Trohimovich agrees that the city is not doing enough to provide effective buffers.

Trohimovich is the Planning Director for Futurewise, public interest and advocacy group that concerned with farmland, forests and shorelines in the state.

“Lake Sammamish has a very severe pollution problem,” he said. “If it wants to be improved, we are going to have to change some of our traditional practices. Nobody is going to want a waterfront property on a lake with dead-zones.”

Futurewise is one of a number of groups to submit information to the city supporting the establishment of sufficient buffers.

“The proposed buffers, in the draft, are too small,” he said. “And the initial direction of the city council seems to be that they are going to weaken those buffers further.”

But Trohimovich remained confident that the city would “ultimately want to do the right thing,” in order to satisfy state requirements.

“Just as the logging industry was claiming that there was no science to support not logging close to streams, people don’t want to hear that there are shoreline ecological functions, and they don’t want to hear that they can’t make a killing on their waterfront property,” Buehler said. “If the lake goes green and slimy, and we have had a few algae blooms already this year, then the people who are going to be most hurt will be those with waterfront property.”

Buehler suggested that landowners should be interested in great environmental protections, in order the protect their investment into the future.

“What we are seeing is a lot of angry people who are not looking past the short term,” she said. “So, instead of people thinking, ‘they’re trying to take away my property,’ they can see that these things will protect their property too.”

Buehler said that the City of Sammamish’s SMP process had perpetuated some misunderstandings, such as that found in landowners’ claims that much runoff pollution came from properties far from the water’s edge.

“Absolutely, that’s true,” she said. “And so they have a feeling they are being discriminated against, but what’s missing is the understanding that this process is only about properties within 200 feet of the water. What’s happening elsewhere is a different process.”

Buehler said that there were a lot of waterfront landowners who were interested in “correcting the abuses that had been perpetuated” by waterfront development, but that often they were frightened to speak publicly. She said that these residents would often report ecological violations to Save Lake Sammamish anonymously, for fear of retribution from other residents who resent such environmental restrictions.

And she is seeing the effect that this intimidation is having on the SMP process in Sammamish.

“The Department of Ecology and the city council is being hammered so hard by the property rights wing,” she said. “And they are giving up on a number of things, without logic, and in the end they will not be compliant with the Shoreline Management Act.”

City Manager Ben Yazici told The Reporter this week that Joanna Buehler had been a valuable asset to the city in the past, with her contribution to discussions involving waterways in the area.

“I understand Joanna’s concerns, but I think the council has demonstrated in the past that they are committed to working through these complex and difficult issues, and always come forward to make the difficult decisions on behalf of the community,” he said.