Hearing focuses on Wetland B, buffer reductions and access: designers argue fencing impractical, city proposes restoration and signage

The hearing turned to whether Wetland B — the narrow lake‑edge wetland — should be fenced, restored, or otherwise excluded from public access. Cross‑examination and testimony explored what the wetlands provide, how they were delineated, and options for buffering and mitigation.

Mister Callow, the city's biologist, testified that Wetland B is largely dominated by invasive plants and that some functions are limited by the existing bulkhead. "We are providing some functional lift by removing the bulkhead around Wetland B… which will allow the wetland to provide hydrologic functions," he said, adding the wetland could regain certain functions once the bulkhead is removed and the buffer is replanted. He also noted that the vegetation in Wetland B is resilient and would rebound from incidental trampling and that signage and logs, rather than full perimeter fencing, are the staff's preferred protective measures.

Cross‑examiners pressed for documentation of some field decisions. The exhibit survey and wetland flags showed numerous field flags along the ordinary high water mark that Callow said were conservatively placed in the field and later reconciled in map preparation; he identified Rowan Hoelfeld as the biologist who made several field calls and said the team did not always document the rationale for every flag placement.

The city planner (David Greetham) and project planner (Kenny Booth) discussed regulatory paths under the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Greetham explained that SMP Chapter 3.30 provides a procedure for certain wetland alterations if a qualified special report demonstrates the project will protect or enhance specific functions; by contrast stream buffer reductions are governed by a table with a measurable minimum that triggers a shoreline variance if surpassed. Booth said the SMP's piers/mitigation provisions were written principally for residential or joint‑use private piers and that public piers were not as clearly described in the SMP; he noted the code allows alternative planting or mitigation when other state/federal agencies approve.

On fencing and shoreline access, the design and geotechnical teams warned that installing a fence along the ordinary high water mark would be structurally difficult (pile support or concrete footings would be needed), could be undermined by wave action, and would block the primary shoreline access the park intends to provide. Callow testified that signage and selective plantings, combined with removing the bulkhead and restoring buffer plantings, are the city's proposed approach to balancing ecological functions and public shoreline access.

What happens next: the record will include the critical area report, mitigation plan and staff recommendations; the hearing examiner and city staff will evaluate whether the SMP exceptions/variance criteria and the special report findings are satisfied prior to any final permit decision.