Silver Cloud Shoreline Permit Can Proceed

UPDATE: 9:30 pm: I thought it might be helpful to reprint some of the documents for those who don't want to wade through all of them. These are the sections that I think summarize the finding fairly well, but please review all the documents for yourself with the links below. ~ Karen

Ruston appeal under Item 3, last paragraph... In addition to evaluating the impacts on view from private residences, the Board also considered the project's impacts on the general public's enjoyment of the shoreline from public areas. As with the residential views, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proposed hotel would obstruct views of the shoreline from the sidewalks and other public areas upland of the site. Importantly, the public will have substantial new access to the shoreline opened up to it, and the unobstructed views of the water that access will provide. In this case, the public's use of the shoreline will be vastly improved. The Board concludes that the opportunity created by the hotel and water walkway for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shoreline is in the public interest and consistent with the Shoreline Management Act's goals and preferences identified in RCW 90.58.020.

This case presents unique facts because it arises in connection with a 'superfund' cleanup of a severely contaminated site. It is not, and has not been for over a hundred years, a natural shoreline. The proposed use is a reasonable one. The re-development of the site clearly provides considerable public benefits that are in the public interest, including vastly improved public access to a shoreline that has been closed and contaminated for a century...

Tacoma appeal, paragraph 9 under Conclusions of Law: Appellant contends that marine and other scenic views, from approximately 10 homes on Bennett Street to the west and above Point Ruston, would be obstructed by the construction of proposed Buildings 2B and 4A above a height of 35 feet. However, the evidence does not support such contention. The principle evidence relied upon by appellant to support its contention was the testimony of Bill Walker concerning view obstruction that he speculated would occur as the result of Buildings 2B and 4A exceeding height of 35 feet. Walker's testimony was unsupported by any view analysis, credible photographic evidence, or any evidence that would demonstrate the comparative views from his home if Buildings 2B and 4A were constructed at a height of 35-feet as opposed to the proposed respective heights 50 feet and 80 feet. Moreover, Walker's testimony was based, in part, on an erroneous assumption that the height of the construction crane jib located n the vicinity of Building 2A was at a height of 50 feet when, in fact, the jib is at a height of at least 112 feet and possibly as height as 176 feet. Appellant has failed to carry its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the construction of proposed Building 2B and 4A above a height of 35 fee would obstruct views on or in areas adjoining the project area...
_______________________________________

Bill Walker et al and Nora Leider et al filed appeals to the Shoreline Permits that were issued for the Silver Cloud Hotel project. Both appeals have now been denied. You can read the decision on the Ruston appeal here... and for the Tacoma appeal here...

I am trying to get a copy of the original appeals, but the issues seem to range from fears of toxic exposure, worker's health, view loss, traffic congestion to name a few. The only two issues that could be considered with an appeal of the shoreline permit were views and traffic. In both cases, the hearings examiners found that the project and SEIS review met the requirement for approval of this project. As noted in the findings on the Ruston appeal, "In this case, the public's use of the shoreline will be vastly improved."

The group could appeal the decisions further in Superior Court.