Tumwater Passes Brewery Property Ordinance

Above: The five story RST Cellars Building at 240 Custer Way is part of the planned action land use ordinance passed by the Tumwater City Council on Tuesday evening. Built over a period of years starting in 1966, the industrial building housed large beer cooling tanks and is not historic. It is located near the historic Schmidt House. In promotional materials, Falls Development has marketed it as a possible hotel with retail on the ground floor. Recently, it has been suggested as the location for a craft brewing and distillery center. It could also be a structured parking garage. Falls Development has said that the redevelopment of this building is one of its first priorities. Photo taken April 16, 2016.

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

“We’re on our way, for better or worse,” said City of Tumwater Mayor Pete Kmet, after the Tumwater city council voted 5 – 2 on Tuesday evening in favor of a planned action land use ordinance that includes the site of the Old Brewhouse.

Councilmembers Ed Hildreth and Joan Cathey voted no.

The action concluded a lengthy public hearing and finalized a land use plan three years in the making for the 32 acre area currently owned by developer George Heidgerken and Falls Development LLC.  The area is roughly bounded by Custer Way to the south, the Deschutes River to the west, Capitol Lake to the north and the railroad to the east.

Out of three land use alternatives offered by the city, the modified ordinance was a compromise of sorts, landing somewhere between a do-nothing approach and a maximum redevelopment build out. 

The council did not give Heidgerken his desired full build-out, instead opting for an alternative that limits a new parking garage to 625 stalls. Parking for a new building, a residential component, would be within that garage.

It also limits any new building within the planned action area to a maximum elevation of 126 feet, which is the ground level in the immediate vicinity of the Schmidt House, to preserve views from the house.

Offering a flexible design, the types of development and square footage of new development may be shifted between land uses, but the total of new PM peak hour vehicle trips can not exceed 306 trips.

The planned action ordinance will be reviewed again in five years by the city’s State Environmental Policy Act official, at which time it could be amended.

On April 5, the City of Tumwater approved a letter of agreement between the city and Falls Development LLC to acquire the six story, historic tower. The acquisition would also include easements to access the property and construct trails.

The tower is currently owned by Heidgerken, who has not yet signed the letter of agreement. He has until April 30 to do so.

During public comment time on Tuesday evening, concern was expressed by a member of the public that Heidgerken may back out and not sign the agreement if the council did not give Heidgerken his desired full build out.

Anthony Hempsted, a new hire of Falls Development LLC, spoke to that concern, saying it has taken partnership and vision to get this far with the city.

“Clearly, the city and Falls Development are in a long term relationship….In no way, shape or form would we walk away from it,” said Hempsted about the letter of agreement.

He praised the council for a transparent website, saying he had reviewed videos of past meetings.  

Regarding the ordinance, he said that Falls Development does not think it is perfect and would have preferred a full build out and more parking, but is willing to work with the city in good faith and the ordinance as written.

He said Falls Development will work on the first phase as soon as possible, the RST Cellars building, saying it could be a great craft brewing and distillery center, and would be a natural catalyst for future development.

The second phase would be the historic site.

“We have not done extensive work on what that would look like in the future. Any development would have to fit within the guidelines of the Historic (Preservation) Commission and we will certainly not do anything to infringe upon the historic nature of the four buildings.…”

Redevelopment of the area includes preservation or restoration of the historic buildings within the planned action area, which are the Old Brewhouse, the east and west warehouses, and the keg house.

Several individuals spoke in support of the ordinance.

Michael Cade, executive director of the Thurston Economic Development Council, admitted this was not an easy site, but spoke in support of the planned action and mentioned other successful planned actions he’s been involved with such as the Southwest Everett Environmental Impact Area and the Bellingham Waterfront District.

Mariella Cummings, chair of the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce, also supported the ordinance, saying the Chamber recognizes the importance of the brewhouse property as a critical jewel in our community’s character. She commended the council, as did others, for the creative, deliberative, thoughtful approach the city has used to get this far in the process.

David Nicandri, a member of Tumwater’s Historic Preservation Committee, the group that will ultimately decide whether or not to issue Heidgerken the required Certificate of Appropriateness for his projects, if they are ever submitted, spoke in support of the planned action. Nicandri is also the former longtime director of the Washington State Historical Society.

Speaking at length as he did at the April 5 public hearing in support of the city’s acquisition of the historic tower, Nicandri likened the city’s challenge regarding the Old Brewery to the City of Tacoma’s revitalization of the Old Union Station into a district courthouse.

Explaining that it was a former Superfund site, he said that every development project has its limitations and opportunities. The Union Station had outlived its usefulness as a station and the only way it was going to be saved was if new development filled in around it. Ideas for its purpose were bantered around. He said the city did the necessary planning and was ready to go when the creative energies of the community finally mobilized around the project.

“So it is possible, with solid design criteria… to do significant infill and do it sensitively, as was done in the case of the Tacoma Union Station project.”

Adding that the Old Brewhouse site is not a pristine, environmental preserve, he continued, saying that Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was urban Tacoma. He said this property, when fully built out in 10 to 20 years, could be nationally recognized.

Others expressed concerns or spoke in opposition to the ordinance.

Krag Unsoeld, president of the South Puget Environmental Education Clearinghouse (SPEECH), expressed concerns about sea level rise for this area and that all the environmental impacts of developing the hillside, removal of the artesian springs, and widening of the road to access the site have not been taken into consideration.

He also expressed concern about the city’s questionable business practice of entering into a hefty financial commitment to restore the tower, and asked how the city is going to follow through if it does not get grant money.

He said the situation was like a tragic comedy.

“…There is some belief that none of this (redevelopment) will ever happen….If you believe that Heidgerken is not serious (about his plans)… then don’t rely on him backing out in hopes of getting what you hope to attain.  Just draw the line and say no, that’s not appropriate, it’s not environmentally appropriate….”

Ryan Carlson said he supports the idea of redevelopment at the site but that the ordinance went too far in scope and scale.  He said that because the brewery is in a historic district, the bar for redevelopment should be set higher, and urged the council to maintain the integrity of the site. Specifically, he said the mitigation plan for the hillside’s stability would require significant re-engineering and the integrity of the site would be lost in the process.

Speaking of diminished integrity, Carlson said he grew up on Tumwater Hill, and noted that the once spectacular Overlook Park, which had allowed for a 360 degree, panoramic view of the city and the region, was reduced to the size of a postage stamp.

Others who spoke in opposition to the ordinance included former Olympia Mayor Bob Jacobs.

“It is ironic that at the same time Olympia is working to eliminate its 'Mistake on the Lake,' Tumwater seems determined to have one of its own,” he said.

The vote was put in the form of a motion by Councilmember Neil McClanahan who said everyone has done their homework. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tom Oliva.

Councilmember Nicole Hill said that while this was the hardest issue she has considered since she’s been on the council, she was pleased that details have been tightened up in the last few weeks.

Councilmember Joan Cathey expressed concern that the council is not in control of the “sweet spot” –  the balance between responsible development and protecting the environment.

Councilmembers were influenced by the thoughtful comments made by the public and all appreciated the high level of civil discourse demonstrated by the public and councilmembers.

Councilmember Tom Oliva, choking up, said the issue was surprisingly hard to talk about, and reminisced how, 20 years ago, he saw the tower, was immediately intrigued by it and wondered why it was dark.

Saying the planned action ordinance was “a little bit overbuilt, in my opinion,” Oliva said he was hopeful and confident that this last opportunity to preserve the buildings will work.

For more photos and information about the planned action, the Old Brewery property and historic tower, George Heidgerken, Falls Development LLC, Tumwater, the brewery district planning efforts and related issues, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com.

For more information about the Planned Action from the City of Tumwater, go to www.ci.tumwater.wa.us.

Tumwater in Negotiations with Heidgerken to Obtain Old Brewhouse Tower

Above: The historic Old Brewhouse in Tumwater as viewed from the former keghouse in October 2014. The City of Tumwater is seeking public comment on a final environmental impact statement for a planned land use action for the 32 acre property owned by George Heidgerken. The city is also in negotiations with Heidgerken to obtain the 110 year old, six story tower. 

Planned Action Conversations Continue, Another Public Hearing to be Scheduled Soon

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

After a lengthy conversation at their Tuesday night work session, Tumwater city councilmembers agreed to hold another public hearing on the planned action land use ordinance for the historic Old Brewery area.

The hearing will be scheduled soon, and no decisions about the property will be made at their next council meeting.

City administrator John Doan also acknowledged that the city is indeed in negotiations with Old Brewhouse owner George Heidgerken about the historic, six story tower.

Doan said that it makes economic sense for Heidgerken to give up the tower because it is in the worst shape with the least amount of square footage of any building on the property.  

“If we acquired it somehow, how much would that cost? (For Heidgerken) to develop, it doesn’t have a lot of value. It’s in a tough spot…it’s an expensive building…with not a lot of return. There are certainly a lot of business reasons why he would want to turn that over to the city,” said Doan.

Doan suggested that the council create a developer’s agreement that would clarify the parameters of the arrangement. That agreement would most likely look like a deed to transfer ownership and some piece of land in the form of an easement so the property could be accessed.  

If obtained by the city, Doan said, the tower could be the impetus for obtaining state grants and future fundraising opportunities to restore the tower, independent of what Heidgerken does with the rest of the property. 

Doan later told Little Hollywood that he hopes to have an agreement with Heidgerken within a couple of months.

Councilmembers agreed to hold a public hearing about the city’s possible acquisition of the tower separate from a public hearing on the proposed planned action land use ordinance.

“It would be a big step for the city. The desire to acquire (the tower) is an opportunity again at long last. There would be a lot of good to have people comment on it,” said Councilmember Tom Oliva. Oliva is a co-founder of the Old Brewhouse Foundation, a local nonprofit formed in 2008 that seeks to acquire, restore and provide public use of the tower.

At a February 16 public hearing about the proposed planned action land use ordinance, Heidgerken dangled the possibility of donating the tower in front of the council, which gave the appearance that he was doing so in exchange for the council’s approval of his desired full build out land use scenario for the 32 acre property.

Public comments since the hearing have urged the city to secure a commitment from Heidgerken in writing first, then move forward with a land use decision, if what he was offering was a legitimate option.

Above: The 400 page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed planned action land use ordinance for the Old Brewery property welcomed each councilmember at their work session meeting on Tuesday.

New Information about Planned Action

Staff also came prepared for Tuesday's work session with a new, draft 10 page supplement to the 400 page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed planned action land use ordinance.

The document called Exhibit C clarifies the scope of what the planned action is approving and made the restoration and preservation of the existing historic structures along the Deschutes River as part of the plan. 

Councilmembers Joan Cathey and Nicole Hill in particular asked many questions about the implications of a planned action, and requested that a developer’s agreement be written that would ensure that some kind of phasing process would prioritize public amenities, should the developer bail on the project.

Councilmember Hill said she still had a hard time grasping the fact that the property owner could rearrange the proposed uses for the property within the footprint allowed. She suggested that parking be placed up near the RST Cellars Building.

Doan admitted that the proposed 1,000 vehicle parking garage where it is currently proposed in the hillside would obstruct views to and from the historic Schmidt House and that its environmental impact that has not yet been assessed.

Doan also said that it is always a possibility that a developer could bail mid-way through a project but expressed confidence in Heidgerken.

“I think if he gets started down there, that he’ll finish….”

Councilmember Cathey said she is uncomfortable approving the project up front without knowing the full description.

Councilmember Debbie Sullivan said she sensed fear and anxiety by fellow councilmembers that she couldn’t grasp.

“When we get into these processes, there are no absolutes. I think there’s checks and balances in the whole process...I don’t think it’s going to be an out of control project. Are we ever going to be able to control 100 percent of everything? I don’t think so,” said Sullivan.

She said the conversation would be different if councilmembers were talking about the modern brewery properties, which was how it was originally envisioned. Sullivan said she is looking at this project holistically as an opportunity for making Tumwater more economically attractive to investors.

Councilmember Hill responded that she didn’t think she was commenting out of fear, but was responding to all the public comment and trying to ask appropriate questions. 

Councilmember Cathey responded that she too didn’t feel fearful, but felt profoundly protective of the culturally and environmentally sensitive property.

Mayor Pete Kmet acknowledged it was a challenging project and said that to make the area work, a residential component is needed. Since the construction of a new building was nixed by staff as unfeasible, Kmet suggested that a part of the warehouse could be “torn off” to create condominiums.

“…We already know through the marketing analysis that this is a challenging project. To do anything down there will cost a lot of money and anything we can do to streamline that is going to increase the chances that something will actually happen to preserve it….If we end up being successful in acquiring the tower, having this (planned action) done allows us to move ahead with preservation. If we don’t, we’re back to square zero and doing this process again….” said Kmet.

For more photos and many past articles about the Old Brewery, George Heidgerken, the stop work order imposed upon Heidgerken for environmental violations at the site in October 2014, groundwater monitoring, the Old Brewhouse Foundation, historic preservation, and the planned action land use alternatives currently before the Tumwater city council, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and type key words in the search button.

For more information about the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Exhibit C, Supplement to Tumwater Brewery Planned Action, or to provide public comment, contact Chris Carlson, Permit Manager, City of Tumwater, 555 Israel Road SW, Tumwater, (360) 754-4180, ccarlson@ci.tumwater.wa.us, or City of Tumwater councilmembers at council@ci.tumwater.wa.us

Old Brewhouse Planned Action Decision Postponed until March 15

Above: The historic Old Brewhouse sits near the Deschutes River in Tumwater. Aerial photo taken in late December 2014. The presence of a proposed 1,000 vehicle parking structure located behind the brewery would wipe out the treed hillside containing legendary artesian springs, and its height could dwarf or wall off views to and from the historic Schmidt House, seen at upper right.

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

A public hearing by the Tumwater City Council on a proposed mixed use planned action ordinance for the 32 acre area around the historic, regionally beloved Old Brewhouse was held February 16.  Due to the illness and absence of three councilmembers, no action was taken.  

A follow up work session was held February 23. Another work session on the issue is scheduled for March 8 at 5:30 p.m.,Tumwater Fire Department training room, on Israel Road. Public comment is not allowed at work sessions.

The subject has been placed on the Tumwater city council agenda for consideration at their March 15th meeting at Tumwater City Hall. That meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

Public Hearing

Kicking off the discussion on February 16, several members of the public and property owner George Heidgerken addressed the council.

Among three land use scenarios, Heidgerken and his project manager, Jon Potter, desire a full build out of the property to include housing and a 1,000 vehicle parking garage. 

The proposed garage would be several stories high and built into the hillside that contains the legendary “It’s the Water” artesian springs that attracted Adolf Schmidt in 1895 to build his brewery on the shore of the Deschutes River.  The brick brewhouse tower that is the symbol of Tumwater was built in 1906.

Potter said that the planned action final environmental impact statement was well written.

“There is a level of development that’s necessary in order to do the restoration work and get the financing necessary to do the restoration that we all want to occur on that site to bring it back to its original grandeur. That build out scenario is necessary in order for us to achieve that goal,” said Potter.

Councilmember Joan Cathey said her research indicates that eight out of ten planned actions used statewide were disastrous to the environment.

“This is giving - deciding - what we’re going to allow when we don’t even know what it is….I feel really emotional about this…this does not seem like the place for density when you can’t even get a vehicle down the hill,” said Cathey, who added that she couldn’t even imagine a 1,000 vehicle garage behind the Old Brewhouse.

The exact height of the garage is undetermined.

When Cathey asked Mayor Pete Kmet when it was decided as a city that this was going to be a planned action, Kmet did not directly respond, but said that this is the first time it’s ever been done in Tumwater.

Chris Carlson, city planner and permit manager, said that the intent of a planned action is to have a detailed environmental analysis conducted ahead of time to streamline the permit review process and is more often used in subarea plans. 

Developers like planned actions because they reduce the overall costs for the project and provide predictability in the process. 

A key sticking point for environmentalists is that planned actions are not subject to State Environmental Policy Act appeal procedures. Their use essentially reduces or eliminates the possibility of legal challenges to individual projects within a study area.

Councilmember Nicole Hill expressed concern that there was nothing in the ordinance that would prevent the owner, George Heidgerken, from destroying the iconic tower.

“I was expecting to see how the tower would be protected and restored…I want assurances for the community,” said Hill, who also mentioned the need for public access and trails.

Councilmembers expressed the importance of balance between restoration of the Old Brewhouse and new development, noting that the tower is deteriorating by the day.

Councilmember Tom Oliva said he is in favor of the full build out scenario and expressed confidence that Heidgerken can develop the property with sensitivity. 

Councilmember Eileen Swarthout agreed with Oliva and thought the council could craft a vision in a way that would be pleasing to the public.

Carlson said the ordinance could be reworked. After extended discussion about how the public could weigh in, Carlson suggested that the council could have another public hearing. That possibility was left up in the air.

In a surprise, rambling comment, Heidgerken mentioned that he is in conversations with the city to donate the tower to the city.

“…That probably will happen because it’s the right thing to do. On projects like this, you’ve got to do a lot of that ‘right thing to do stuff’ because projects like this add up very quickly….Projects like this can take up $150 million in no time at all and you don’t know when you start these things that that’s going to happen….The old Custer building (the RST Cellars building) in a lot of ways looks like hell. It’s a building that needs to stay. It needs to look like it fits in – that means brick it….If we don’t make this site look good…we’re going to darn well wish we did when we’re done, and our intentions are to do that….” said Heidgerken.

Neither councilmembers nor staff elaborated about these conversations with Heidgerken.

In October 2014, the City of Tumwater issued a stop work order at the site after Heidgerken was found to be illegally filling in wetlands and grading a road at the site without permits. Heidgerken has a history of committing environmental offenses.

The stop work order was lifted when Heidgerken was issued a permit in September 2015 to begin groundwater monitoring. The permit allows his company to place 644 cubic yards of fill in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the Old Brewhouse building. Groundwater monitoring is required as part of soil remediation work associated with a paint shop that was formerly in this area.

Heidgerken has yet to start work, said city staff.

Above: The six story Old Brewery tower is in severe disrepair. Several areas are roofless and exposed to the elements. Photo taken from within the tower in October 2014.

Discussion Continued at February 23 Council Work Session 

The conversation continued at a council work session Tuesday evening. At both the February 16 and 23 meetings, the written comments by Tumwater resident Nancy Partlow were mentioned by councilmembers. 

“I see very little in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that reflects an imaginative or creative vision for redevelopment of Tumwater’s most iconic site.  What’s being proposed are the same highly impactful, highly engineered solutions to perceived problems that would be proposed for any other property in the city. There is nothing here that acknowledges, honors, or works with the very special cultural, historical, or natural features of the area,” wrote Partlow.

“What would these buildings look like on-site and in relation to the current buildings? How would the currently-treed hillside south of the Old Brewhouse buildings and north of the Schmidt Mansion change in appearance with the building of a parking garage, condos and a new access road? How would the view north from the Schmidt Mansion site be impacted by a parking garage being built on the hillside below?  Would the roof of the new structure dominate the foreground of the view?   

“To say that the loss of the hillside trees, which are growing in highly challenging circumstances on steep slopes and rocky substrate, can be mitigated by Tumwater’s Tree Protection Ordinance, or the forest restored in any meaningful way or length of time, is highly questionable….These hillside springs and seeps have been a natural feature of this site from time immemorial. It was this fresh water that drew Adolf Schmidt to the site to make his beer. They are also an important component of Tumwater’s nearshore environment. 

“I ask the council to deeply ponder whether the mitigations proposed in the Final EIS are sufficient to counterbalance the substantial impacts an urban-intensity development would have on that older site history, and upon the beautiful, quiet natural area that currently exists,” wrote Partlow.

Sharron Coontz attended Tuesday night’s work session about the Planned Action EIS and submitted written comment to the mayor. 

“A Planned Action EIS is a dangerous tool. It allows the developer incredible flexibility.  After the project is underway, changes can be made that have environmental impacts never considered in the original EIS.  Developers in the past have stated that these changes are covered since they’re working under the aegis of a Planned Action EIS.  Hearing examiners have upheld that claim,” wrote Coontz.

“It completely negates the rights of citizens. If no one appealed the original Planned Action EIS, seeing no serious danger listed in the environmental impact section, then hearing examiners have said that none of the individual projects can be appealed as they arise. Changes can be made to the original project and citizens are helpless, with no legal recourse.

“We’re discussing an iconic, historic site, important to many of us who, like my family, have generations-long roots in the area….No developer should be given the leeway allowed in a Planned Action EIS, and certainly not one with Mr. Heidgerken’s track record,” wrote Coontz.

Speaking of flexibility, city staffer Chris Carlson said that, indeed, the specific uses identified within the planned action area, such as the proposed condominiums and restaurants, could be switched around within the footprint of the site.

Discussion centered on the size of the proposed 1,000 vehicle parking structure. Councilmember Nicole Hill said that the tower should be the centerpiece and the design of the garage would seem to overshadow the tower’s appearance.

Mayor Kmet and Councilmember Hill asked staff to reorganize the documents comments in a searchable format that allows councilmembers and the public to better read the impacts and the proposed mitigations.

To see the final planned action environmental impact statement, go to http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/home/showdocument?id=8603. To search the document, save it to your desktop or other preferred folder and then open it up with Adobe Reader and search. For more information, contact Chris Carlson, City of Tumwater, (360) 754-4180 or ccarlson@ci.tumwater.wa.us. The proposed ordinance is No. O2016-003.

Editor's Correction, February 28: The following quote should have been attributed to Nancy Partlow, not Sharron Coontz: 

“....The developer should work with the site’s natural elements to make this project not only environmentally and ecologically 'sensitive' but a model to others for how it can be done. This is an opportunity to do things differently, in a truly special and unique way. I am not seeing that in this document.”

For past stories about Tumwater, the three planned action land use alternatives for the Old Brewhouse property, George Heidgerken, the stop work order in 2014 and related stories and photos, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and type key words into the search engine.