Loading...
Edmonds Waterfront Testimony Summary Appendix A.pdfAppendix A Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Summary of Hearing Testimony Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or necessary to the decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an indication of what the Examiner found significant to his decision. May 23, 2019 Kernen Lien, Senior Edmonds Planner, used a PowerPoint (Exhibit 4) to present the Staff Report and overview permits. Carrie Hite, Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Hite expressed that the applicant believes the planned redevelopment of the site is consistent with the Edmond's comprehensive plan, the parks, recreation, and open space plan, and the shoreline master program. Ms. Hite expressed redevelopment will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare and that nearby property owners will not face lasting adverse impacts from the project. As the city owns the easement and the portion of the beach that will be impacted by the project, Ms. Hite expressed that the city is not obligated to relinquish their legal rights to redevelop the land. Ms. Hite expressed a belief that the conditional use permit should be personal to the City of Edmonds as the city owns the property and has entered a long-term lease with the nonprofit organization of Edmonds Senior Center and therefore this not be transferred to another entity. Mr. Farrell Fleming, the Executive Director of the Edmonds Senior Center, described the Edmonds Senior Center as a nonprofit organization since 1967. Mr. Fleming expressed the important cultural value the Edmonds Waterfront Center will have calLien the space a "creative way to bring the generations together" and that it will be "a gathering place, and connect, strengthen, and enrich our community in many ways." Sally Knodell, a director of architecture at Environmental Worksa nonprofit community design center in Seattle —described the proposed building as multipurpose, with flexible spaces that range in size. Ms. Knodell described the spaces in the proposed Waterfront Center and many of its purposes. The Waterfront Center will also be a sustainable building, receiving silver certification from LEED. Ms. Knodell expressed that from her multiple decades of experience working as a design professional for community facilities this project stands out as particularly remarkable for the City of Edmonds. Nick Morin, an employee of Environmental Works, gave a visual tour of the current project site and its hopeful improvements. Mr. Morin discussed ADA implementations that will be made with the project's redevelopment. Mr. Morin described the Waterfront Center redevelopment as maintaining the character of the current environment while also being an exciting opportunity to improve the quality and accessibility of the entire space. John Barker applicant representative, discussed the walkway over the water. Mr. Barker expressed the goals of implementing the walkway (See: Exhibit 5, Slide 18). Mr. Barker discussed that there is already extensive waterfront walkway in the area and the at the site of the Edmonds Waterfront Development is the only "missing link" within this system that spans over a mile. Mr. Barker described that the applicant hopes to build a durable walkway in the easement to accommodate people maneuvering legally through this space. Jeff Parsons, a geomorphologist who authored a great deal of the project's environmental documentation, expressed that protocol will be strictly followed to minimize any adverse environmental impacts, especially with the walkway. Mr. Parsons discussed how the waterfront center site is currently bulkheaded. The bulkhead for the parking lot discharges directly to the Puget Sound at high tide and this element will be removed which is considered an environmental improvement. The examiner asked Mr. Parsons if he would give his opinion on the net of loss in ecology. Mr. Parsons said that he believed that there would be either a net benefit or no net loss of ecological standard when accounting for the restoration efforts to be done by the applicant such as the removal of the bulkhead. Jim Bray a senior project manager with WG Clark Construction, the contractor which was selected to build the Edmonds Waterfront Center, said he supports the project but expressed concerns over the necessity of getting construction prompted as soon as possible. Mr. Bray expressed that this is a busy time for construction around the greater -Seattle area, meaning construction resources are more difficult to access. Mr. Bray has secured subcontractors who are crucial players in getting the project underway; however, these subcontractors are all under the impression and have signed on to work with a July -start date. Given the "hot" construction market in the greater -Seattle area if they are unable to start in July there is a high risk of losing these contractors to other projects. Ms. Alta Ohtamo identified herself as a teacher in the Edmonds School District and a member of the Edmonds Senior Center having served as Treasurer of this program. Ms. Ohtamo has contributed her money and time to this project. Ms. Ohtamo expressed that this is an important, vital project and that the examiner should approve all permits. Stephan Wakefield, the attorney for the Ebb Tide Homeowner Association, introduced the Ebb Tide members. Mr. Wakefield expressed that the Ebb Tide is more "concerned about the elevated walkway, not the Senior Center" as the walkway is "proposed to be placed on their private beach in front of their building." Mr. Wakefield cited applicable provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Wakefield mentioned that the easement which was delineated by the courts in 1983 was labeled as "ambiguous" and that there is no "crystal clear" language or precedent for the city to build the walkway. Mr. Wakefield suggests that the provisions he mentioned does indeed encourage the city to provide access and benefits for the public but that this does not trump what the provisions mentions as the equally important objective of protecting private property rights. Mr. Wakefield suggested that the Ebb Tide residents believe that the City's plan to fix the "missing link" in the walkway will only cause people to trespass on the private beach belonging to the residents of the Ebb Tide. Mr. Wakefield mentioned people living at the Ebb Tide are also worried about liability issues if someone were to hurt themselves on the waterway. Mr. Wakefield mentioned that there also could be negative impacts on the fish habitat in the area with the applicant's implementation that an expert will be able to testify on later. Mr. Wakefield also mentioned Ebb Tide residents' concerns over their views being impacted and issues of the mobility of the people living at the Ebb Tide. Molly Smith a property owner at the Ebb Tide who lives on the first floor provided comments criticizing the walkway. Ms. Smith's declaration is on the record. Ms. Smith expressed that the waterway passage will create the potential for an invasion of private property and privacy and that, overall, the project will be a nuisance for Ebb Tide property owners. Mr. Larry Hoppe, a resident of the Ebb Tide, made comments critical of the walkway. Mr. Hoppe is appalled by the idea of building the walkway on the water. Mr. Hoppe expressed that the walkway will be a major obstacle for people. Mr. Hoppe believes that the City of Edmonds is planning to ruin one of the best beaches in the area. Mr. Gary Haakenson, a former councilmember and mayor in Edmonds, commented in favor of the approving the project. Mr. Haakenson has been involved in this project and expressed that people have, fpr many years, been desiring to improve this area. Mr. Haakenson believes this project will benefit the entire public. Ms. Rita Speiser, a resident at the Ebb Tide, critiqued the walkway. Ms. Speiser thinks removing the bulkhead could be beneficial but not adding the bridge. Ms. Speiser also mentioned that the added element of shading from the light for the fish below the surface of the water could be important. Mr. Daniel Johnson is a campaign director at the Edmonds Senior Center and expressed support for the project. Mr. Johnson said that in his 35 years of experience working with community and organization fundraising he has never seen a more effective and impactful community effort than this project. Mr. Johnson believes this project has the potential to become a national model for struggLien senior centers. Mr. Parker lives at the Ebb Tide and opposes the walkway over the water. Mr. Parker bought his property hoping to own private tide lands. Mr. Parker expressed that the quality of his property, his boating ability, and his beach access would all be negatively impacted by the implementation of the walkway. Mr. Parker feels like the city is now taking advantage of the ambiguous status of the easement for their own interests while not thinking of the original intent or the value of the properties of the people living at Ebb Tide and the beach access of the people living there. As a resident of the Ebb Tide, Mr. Parker expressed concerns over losing privacy, security, and increased noise levels. Willard Wilcox, a resident of the Ebb Tide, spoke emphasizing the issue of safety on the walkway. Mr. Wilcox also suggested that the city does not actually need to have the walkway to be compliant with the ADA and that it needs to be clear that the applicant and the Senior Center are hoping to do this on their own volition. May 24, 2019. Mr. Drouin, a resident of the Ebb Tide, spoke against the walkway over the water. Mr. Drouin and his wife have been living at the Ebb Tide for over two years. Mr. Drouin mentioned that he purchased his residence with the intention of having beachfront property on the Puget Sound. Mr. Drouin expressed that the City was not respecting the property rights of the Ebb Tide residents. Mr. Drouin wishes they could find a way to build a walkway to navigate around the Ebb Tide. Mr. Drouin also echoed previously expressed concerns over security and safety. Farrell Fleming spoke adding continued support for the project. Mr. Fleming expressed concerns over the dilapidated condition of the current Senior Center. Mr. Fleming described the current condition as faiLien. Mr. Fleming mentioned that the first floor was uneven and has numerous trip hazards and issues with floor -sinking in the lobby and library. Mr. Fleming mentioned several issues with the plumbing and sewer system at the Senior Center. Mr. Fleming mentioned the importance of a recent City of Edmonds' Strategic Action Plan and how he believes updating the Senior Center was a crucial element within this platform. Paula Parker expressed opposition to the elevated walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. Ms. Parker believes this elevated walkway is extremely dangerous and there are significant safety hazards. Ms. Parker expressed concerns about how youth and others will behave on the walkway. Ms. Parker does not believe the area that currently does not have a walkway should be considered a missing link. Mr. Phillip Lovell spoke on behalf of the Edmonds Senior Center Project in support of the applicant. Mr. Lovell is a civil engineer and has been a resident of Edmonds for 27 years. Mr. Lovell supports full passage of the permits required for the Senior Center and Waterfront Center Project. Mr. Lovell, having listened to various testimony, reflected on the idea that all parties involved seem to be in support of Senior Center redevelopment and the Waterfront Center; if something were to happen to block the walkway from being built he wants to make sure the authorization is still given to begin construction on the other aspects of the project. The SEPA appeal portion of the hearing began with a presentation led by Stephan Wakefield. Letters sent from Mr. Wakefield on the morning of May 24 as well as the examiner's responses were entered into the record as Exhibit 7. Prompted by the examiner, Mr. Taraday mentioned that the walkway project could be made conditional in the examiner's decision based on whether the city prevails in the Superior Court case over the easement litigation. Mr. Taraday also mentioned that, if the city does not prevail in the litigation, construction could be conditioned upon the city acquiring additional rights to build the walkway. The City is unlikely to begin construction on the walkway until after the Superior Court's litigation is complete. Mr. Taraday gave the Applicant's rebuttal. Mr. Taraday mentioned that several commenters have made the analogy that their property is being taken away from them or damaged by the proposed project. Mr. Taraday wanted to mention that this is an issue pertaining to the case being heard by the Superior Court not for the examiner. If the easement allows the City to pursue the project as they intend this rhetoric created by commenters becomes a non -issue. If the easement does not allow the city to build; if the court decides in favor of the Ebb Tide, the city must acquire the rights or not pursue building the walkway. Mr. Taraday discussed the current stairway near the Ebb Tide patio and the proposed stairs. Mr. Taraday mentioned that the new stairway in the proposed project is not intended for public use purposes but will facilitate Ebb Tide resident's access to the beach. Mr. Taraday mentioned that if it turns out that Ebb Tide residents do not want this stairway, because they are concerned about trespassing and safety, the city will eliminate the stairs. The city merely thought this was an effective access -measure created by the city for the Ebb Tide residents. The stairs are not currently in the staff recommended conditions. Mr. Taraday responded to liability concerns mentioning that any lawsuits arising from hypothetical falls from the structure would be covered by the State's Recreational Immunity Statute. Mr. Taraday responded to comments from the previous day that the walkway could be "an attraction of sorts," and complains about overcrowding in the area and smoking marijuana. The walkway will be subject to the same laws as other public spaces and parks. Mr. Taraday mentioned that all city parks are open from dawn to dusk meaning they should not be used after dark. Ebb Tide residents could contact the police if they witnessed issues. Mr. Taraday mentioned that much like roads, trails can be closed during major storms and the walkway could also be closed during severe weather events. The hearing examiner asked if there would be a possibility of installing gates at the ends of the walkway to ensure that people would not pass through it overnight. Carrie Hite responded to this mentioning that it would likely be the burden of the Parks Department to close gates. Mr. Lien had Mr. Parson's give supplementation to his testimony from the previous day. Mr. Parsons provided supplemental information about how bulkheads could be damaging to fish habitats. Mr. Parsons showcased how the bulkhead at the project site has a negative impact and that by removing it the project not create a net loss for the wildlife in the area. The hearing examiner asked if the walkway would have impacts on forage fish. Mr. Parsons answered that the walkway would have an impact but that is unlikely that with mitigation there would be a net loss of ecological function. The examiner asked Mr. Parsons asked if the walkway will be grated. Mr. Parsons affirmed that it would be and that this would allow light to pass through. The examiner mentioned comments made about shade from the previous hearing and asked Mr. Parsons his opinion on these matters. Mr. Parsons responded that shade does have an impact but that these are minimized to the extent practicable which is that we are grating it [the walkway] as much as they can and by making the walkway as high as they could which is what he believes the project is attempting to do. When asked to clarify his expertise Mr. Parsons mentioned that he has a BA, MA, and PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign. After his time at Illinois, Mr. Parsons did a post doctorate degree at MIT which focused more on geomorphology and oceanography. Mr. Parsons was a faculty member at the University of Washington in the School of Oceanography with affiliated positions in Geology and Civil Engineering. Mr. Wakefield was given the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Parsons. Mr. Wakefield asked if Mr. Parsons knew if the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDWF) has a map that established a potential fish forage habitat in front of the Ebbtide. Mr. Parsons responded that they do have a map. At this point WDWF Forage Fish Maps and Primary Habitat Species Maps from August of the previous year were entered into the record as Exhibit 12. June 6, 2019 Due to time constraints, only portions of the June 6, 2019 hearing are summarized. [skipped to 1:45:00 of June 6 Part I to Mr. Selleck] James Selleck testified on the SEPA appeal. Mr. Selleck has been a professional marine ecologist for over 20 years. Mr. Selleck has a BS in Marine and Freshwater Biology from University of New Hampshire and has an MS in Marine and Estuarine Science from Western Washington University. Mr. Selleck read extensive documentation to testify. Mr. Selleck mentioned that the Ebb Tide beach is a forage fish habitat designated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Selleck visited and analyzed the site to affirm this as well. Mr. Selleck described that forage fish are the base of the food web in this area and are vital to the ecosystem. Mr. Selleck called these forage fish one of the most important species in the Puget Sound. Mr. Selleck mentioned that waves can have heavy impact on forage fish habitats. Mr. Selleck included that wave action is crucial for forage fish eggs and that a moderate amount of wave action can benefit the eggs. Mr. Selleck described the beach as highly suitable for forage fish spawning in its current state. Looking at an image of the Ebb Tide beach, Mr. Selleck described the site as suitable, but not perfect, for a forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck stated there is a good chance of egg survival at this location. Mr. Selleck mentioned that, even when factoring winter storms into the equation, the beach is likely to remain suitable as a forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck clarified that a lack of vegetation on the beach does not equate the space to a poor forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck mentioned that the high-water mark is around 11 feet at the Ebb Tide beach. Mr. Selleck was shown the design of the overwater walkway and was asked to discuss the impact of the walkway on the forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck mentioned that the obvious footprint of the walkway would be its pilings. Mr. Selleck stated that what is currently documented is that the pilings will reduce the forage fish habitat by 35 square-ft. Mr. Selleck mentioned that, for the sense of this project, that impact was all that was taken into consideration; however, it should be considered that the walkway will have long-term, permanent impacts on the forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck clarified that the entire walkway over the water will have substantial impacts on the forage fish habitat not just the pilings. Mr. Selleck's analysis suggests that, when considering the extent of the full walkway, 14,000 square-ft. of forage fish habitat will be lost. Mr. Selleck mentioned that he thinks forage fish will be unable to spawn under the walkway and that by limiting their access to the beach itself also creates an adverse impact. Mr. Selleck stated that there should be no net loss of habitat in the area as mandated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; however, this project will create a significant amount of permanent ecological loss. Mr. Selleck stated that if the walkway is implemented, restoration efforts would be difficult and would likely take over 60 years. Mr. Selleck does not believe that the proposed mitigation measures adequately address the issue of impacted forage fish habitat specifically. Mr. Selleck mentioned that other proposed mitigation measures to improve the surrounding environment are not directly proportional to alleviating the issue of adversely impacting forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck stated mitigation efforts would be adequate if the pilings —what has been currently addressed —were the only factor that needed to be considered. Mr. Selleck mentioned that a great deal of the mitigation was for upland area on the site. Mr. Selleck further described that mitigation alone proposed by the project does not equate to mitigation for the forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck agreed with questioning that the net loss of forage fish habitat is a violation of WAC 220-60-370. Mr. Selleck believes that, overall, the mitigations proposed do not resolve the no net loss rule for the forage fish habitat. Mr. Selleck stated that he had worked on, and seen, many other projects that effectively navigated this issue so it is unfortunate that this project's proposed walkway will be ineffective. In cross Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Selleck if he had reviewed the Biological Opinion by the National Marine Fishery Service which Mr. Selleck said he did not remember exactly but believes that he had encountered it. Mr. Selleck mentioned that he likely read this document for several hours. Mr. Selleck mentioned that he takes issue with some of the report's finer points about impacts on the food web and other "big picture" elements; however, he understands the final ruling of the report. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Selleck to clarify what he meant when he had previously stated that the documented species of forage fish spawned as high as 9 ft. to 11 ft. Mr. Selleck stated that when the high tide is up to 9 ft. to 11 ft. the fish will try and go as high as the water allows them to spawn, this is measured against mean -low, average low, or zero -mean low water. Mr. Selleck discussed that this mean low is established by various sources including the Army Corps. Mr. Taraday asked why Mr. Selleck had testified why the fish will not be able to access part of the beach -area where they like to respond. Using the map, Mr. Selleck responded showing the specific parts of the map that have certain depths of water where fish will spawn and indicating how spawning will be adversely impacted. Mr. Selleck referred Mr. Taraday to review the biological opinion on page 17 section 2.3 of SEPA to see how overwater structure will negatively impact the ability of fish to spawn. Alluding to the ongoing discussion of shading, Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Selleck if there is a physical blockage or the existence of shade acts as a blockage. Mr. Selleck responded it is a combination. Mr. Selleck believes this is the opinion of federal scientists not just himself. He stated that the shared opinion of scientists is that overwater structures that close to the beach is either going to physically block and prevent fish from accessing the beach, or the overwater structure is going to provide enough coverage and shade that fish are not going to be able to access their high tide area. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Selleck if he is a geomorphologist to which Mr. Selleck stated that he is not but that he works on a lot of projects involving shoreline restoration. Mr. Taraday asked if the idea of sand movement and shifting tides is more within the specialty of a geomorphologist to which Mr. Selleck stated that this is true but he also has professional experience in this field. Mr. Taraday asked that if Mr. Selleck had made his assumption based on whether this was a solid walkway and not a grated walkway. Mr. Selleck stated his opinion is based on the solid concrete and metal structure's proximity to the forage fish habitat and that other witnesses could speak on architectural design. Mr. Selleck answered several questions all to indicate that several factors impacted his opinions not just one singular impact. Mr. Selleck mentioned he does not believe the site is of poor ecological quality. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Selleck if he believes habitat can be evaluated equally on a square -footage basis to which Mr. Selleck responded yes from a design and permitting perspective as well as in mitigation. Mr. Selleck believes that from a mitigation standpoint the project will cause the quality of the fish forage habitat to be lost, essentially, in its entirety. Mr. Selleck stated that if the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife reviewers survey the site, they will initially look at the square footage of lost habitat under the no net loss rule, these surveyors are not required to view all habitat as equal. Mr. Selleck mentioned that the total ability of fish to spawn in this area as a whole —given the proposed project's surroundings and the other parts of the shoreline —will all be impacted if the proposed walkway is approved because it will provide less total area for fish. The examiner asked if the 1400 square feet of lost habitat Mr. Selleck discussed included the upland area to which Mr. Selleck responded that it included the ramps leading up to the walkway and the total walkway itself which does not include the area upland of the walkway. Including that area would lead to even more loss in Mr. Selleck's opinion. The examiner asked Mr. Selleck if he thinks restoration projects in the city are more reliable than they were back in 1999 to which Mr. Selleck said there were significant improvements since this time. The examiner asked Mr. Selleck what he thinks about aspects of the biological opinion. Mr. Selleck expressed general agreement with the elements of the opinion the hearing examiner brought into discussion although at points he did not want to speculate. Mr. Wakefield hoping for more clarity asked Mr. Selleck to clarify that the entire length of the proposed walkway will indeed create a net loss of forage fish habitat over the entire walkway. Mr. Selleck does not see two -and -half feet of clearance at all times below the walkway. Mr. Selleck thinks the width of the structure is just as important as how the walking area will exist itself. Mr. Selleck does not think quality of available passage is being provided by the strucutre as it is proposed. Mr. Selleck thinks the concrete, solid parts of the structure are present this will overpower the shading given off by grating or other parts of the strucutre. Mr. Selleck discussed how, for example, removing the parking lot proposed and removal of certain trees far away from the beech should not be included as a type of mitigation for loss of forage fish habitat. The public access area off the road is not adequate when thinking of the beach in Mr. Selleck's opinion. The examiner asked Mr. Selleck how marginal an impact needed to occur for one to consider an impact likely to adversely affect a species. Mr. Selleck stated that it depended on the specific species and that this species in question had a significant impact on the food web. After questioning from Mr. Taraday Mr. Selleck relisted the various circumstances in which the salmon in question spawn and that it is not just within a range of 9ft to 11 ft. Mr. Selleck notes that they can spawn from 7ft to 11ft in most cases but they needed access to the beach for the total spawning. Mr. Selleck would describe the area between the Ebb Tide bulkhead and the walkway as high beach, this is the area of tidal water movement. Mr. Selleck was asked by Mr. Taraday if fish could still spawn and access the beach if the fish had adequate access to the beach underneath the walkway. Mr. Selleck believed it would not be adequate spawning grounds even if they just gave the fish one foot through which to maneuver and spawn in. Mr. Selleck was asked if his analysis is based on fish not being able to reach the area, they require for spawning to which he said yes because the fish will not be able to access this area if the walkway strucutre is implemented. Mr. Selleck again mentioned that he believes the structure inhibits spawning in toto. Despite further questioning labeled pointless by Mr. Selleck coming from Mr. Taraday, Mr. Selleck remained firm that fish spawning at the site, given the structure as it is designed will detract from salmon spawning. Mr. Selleck mentioned that he does not ignore water -quality aspects in mitigation; however, he is not a water -quality analyst. Mr. Selleck stated that it was commonplace, not necessarily significant, that the stormwater improvements that Mr. Taraday stated would increase the quality of water discharged. Mr. Selleck does not necessarily agree that the removal of toxins from runoff would count exactly in this case. Mr. Selleck essentially believes the mitigation is insufficient and not in - kind and equal across the board in this case. Mr. Selleck refused to speculate on several questions from Mr. Taraday. Mr. Wakefield wanted Mr. Selleck to state if he believes if mitigations were in -kind or not to which he said they indeed were not in -kind. Jeff Taraday represented the City in rebuttal. James Parsons a geomorphologist who had already spoken several times served as a rebuttal witness. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Parsons about how much space there will be between the sand and the underside of the overwater walkway. Mr. Parsons stated that the NAVD 88 elevation of the underside of the walkway is 12 feet, which he stated was not coincidental because that is the highest stillwater level that has been observed in the area. Mr. Parsons discussed page 197 and 198 of the Staff Report overviewing measurements of space that were suggested as what would be between the sand levels and the underside of the walkway. Mr. Taraday had Mr. Parsons answer several questions about mitigation, particularly the amount of mitigation being provided by the project. Mr. Parsons stated he was not the ecologist who worked on this element of the project. Mr. Parsons mentions that the 35 square-ft. is only about the permanently impact area. Mr. Parsons stated he does not think the project would be impacting the habitat between the habitat and the bulkhead in a significant manner. Mr. Taraday referred Mr. Parsons to page 899 of the Staff Reportparticularly attachment 44—which he affirmed iterated much of his testimony. Mr. Parsons iterated that the project intends on restoring enough area to properly fulfill mitigations. The examiner asked Mr. Parsons if he feels there is no net loss in the mitigations he has put together if the entire forage fish spawning area underneath the walkway area in addition to the area between the bulkhead and walkway were considered lost due to the project, which Mr. Parsons affirmed. The next witness was Jose Carrasquero. Mr. Carrasquero's CV was entered into the record as Exhibit 16. Mr. Carrasquero is a fisheries and marine biologist who has been working in the profession for over 29 years. Mr. Carrasquero has a BA and an MA from the University of Washington School of Fisheries. Mr. Carrasquero had written and reviewed significant papers on the topics of shade, water sediment, and other issues pertinent to this case. Mr. Carrasquero was asked to consider the impact of the shade from the walkway. Exhibit 17, a photo of the Ebb Tide beach, was entered into the record. Mr. Carrasquero has worked to study what the magnitude of the shade case from the walkway will be as an effect in this case. Based on his experience at the site Mr. Carrasquero thinks that although the walkway may have some sort of shadow to it, in terms of the existing conditions and the normal weather in the area, it is not likely to change the environment that much. Mr. Carrasquero expressed that shade is not necessarily a bad thing for forage fish spawning habitats and, in fact, has been documented as a benefit for fish. Mr. Carrasquero affirmed that in the early morning there is going to be shade there anyway and in the evening the shade will be on the upper side of the beach area and not likely impacting the fish at the site of this project. Mr. Carrasquero stated that forage fish can spawn at various times of the day and there is no research that suggests the specific type of fish being discussed in this case are impacted by shade. Mr. Carrasquero has also witnessed forage fish spawning under structures meaning the walkway may not impact spawning as much as had been suggested previously in the hearing. Mr. Carrasquero believes that there is not a significant physical impairment for fish to spawn in this area because tidal currents will move eggs around to some degree. Mr. Carrasquero discussed further ways that eggs be moved around in differing manners. Mr. Carrasquero was asked if he had any concerns about forage fish accessing the area under the walkway or the high beach to which he said he does not. Mr. Carrasquero said the only area that would not be accessible are those areas that will be permanently removed are the areas consistent with the pilings. Mr. Carrasquero spoke on the topic of mitigation speaking favorably about how the project proposes the mitigation to be done. Mr. Carrasquero believes there is no reason fish can not spawn in the beach area in front of the Ebb Tide after the walkway is built or in its current state. Mr. Carrasquero thinks that fish would not likely be in the area if they were not spawning. Mr. Carrasquero believes the mitigation proposed would be highly beneficial for the forage fish. Mr. Carrasquero attested that the habitat proposed is a significantly more functional than the habitat in its current state. Mr. Carrasquero believes this type of mitigation process that is proposed is highly desirable as it is restoring physical chemical processes to the area. Mr. Carrasquero has no doubt in his mind that the project exceeds the no net loss standard. Mr. Carrasquero stated that without mitigation as it is posed there would be a net loss but that this would not even create a significant impact. In the appellent's cross examination Mr. Carrasquero further testified that he does not believe shade in any way will have significant impact on the forest fish in this case. Mr. Carrasquero thinks that the grating will have an effect on shading but if the grating was not there his opinion would likely not be impacted. Mr. Carrasquero believes that as long as salmon have enough water to swim, they will indeed swim in these areas and that salmon often swim in extremely shallow areas. Mr. Carrasquero thinks that net loss only occurs when loss goes unmitigated. Mr. Carrasquero believes that Mr. Selleck is incorrect in his statements about shading as he thinks that his suggestions do not correlate to the specific forage fish being discussed. Related to mitigation, Mr. Carrasquero expressed a favorable opinion on the mitigation efforts. Mr. Carrasquero mentioned again that he has seen forage fish spawning on beaches and under the shade of hanging trees. In response to the examiner Mr. Carrasquero stated he has no reason to believe that forage fish do not live in the area of the elevated walkway. In response to the examiner, Mr. Carrasquero spoke favorably about the 1:1 ratio for mitigation including for spawning areas saying that it can be successful. Mr. Carrasquero believes that this project will have more than a 1:1 impact but that this is for someone else to calculate. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Carrasquero if he had also seen forage fish spawning under manmade structures and not just trees to which he responded that he had seen this occur. Todd Parker, Ebb Tide resident, gave public comment expressing that he believes in the importance of the preserving a beach environment. Mr. Parker believes that the beach at the Ebb Tide's beach is not accurately reflected in the photos submitted as evidence. Mr. Parker also wanted to express how the changing tides shift the condition and aesthetic experience of the Ebb Tide beach. Mr. Parker had several scientific questions as well as questions about the proposed mitigations. Mr. Parker noted that the restoration project would facilitate kayak and other public access to the spawning areas, creating more harm. Mr. Parker wanted to express that he in disappointed in the city and that they are intentionally causing harm to the residents of the Ebb Tide and risking the safety of the public without any sense of accountability. City responded that Mr. Parker's testimonies may be farfetched in his suggestions about how dire the implications of the project may be. Ms. Hite gave comment as well about accessibility and the importance of trying to alleviate and avoid habitat disturbance while also trying to effectively mitigate unavoidable impacts. Ms. Hite mentioned that she expects that people will launch kayaks —but not a significant change with the project being implemented —in this area and it will not have a significant impact. Ms. Hite thinks that redevelopment will not drastically increase the amount of people coming into the area as it is already readily utilized by the public.