Tumwater in Negotiations with Heidgerken to Obtain Old Brewhouse Tower

Tumwater in Negotiations with Heidgerken to Obtain Old Brewhouse Tower

water  

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.comand 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

Old Brewhouse Planned Action Decision Postponed until March 15

tumwater  

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.

Old Brewhouse Foundation Provides Solutions To Save History

Old Brewhouse Foundation Provides Solutions To Save History

tumwater  

Above: Structural repair and rehabilitation is needed in order to meet current building standards and prevent further deterioration and damage to Tumwater’s historic Brewhouse tower. The six story tower, as seen this week from Tumwater Falls Park, is 10,000 square feet in size with the entire facility encompassing 100,000 square feet. 

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The Old Brewhouse Foundation was formed in 2008 as a nonprofit organization to bring together groups and individuals to develop a plan for the acquisition, restoration, and public use of the Old Brewhouse area.  

Their next meeting, which is open to the public, is Saturday, October 17, 10:30 a.m., at the Tumwater Timberland Library.

In August, the Foundation briefed the Tumwater city council at a work session on the group’s efforts. Among other suggestions, the group is proposing that the public purchase the entire brewhouse facility through a 20-year bond of $100 million over 20 years funded by a property tax. 

The Brewhouse tower and surrounding buildings are still viable structures, but need new roofs, seismic retrofits, and additional improvements.  At the very minimum, weather-proofing the buildings is necessary to include adding new roofs and windows to preserve the structures.

According to the Foundation, the initial brewhouse restoration is estimated to be $5.6 million, which reflects the cost of acquisition. The likely acquisition cost is a rough estimate of $2.5 million and includes some assumptions for project management costs.

No action is possible as long as the current owner, George Heidgerken, owns the building. Very little activity has occurred since his acquisition of the property about five years ago. The building's deterioration is reaching a point of no return, says the Foundation.

It is not known if George Heidgerken or his company, Falls Development, LLC, is interested in selling the property.

Above: The Old Brewhouse Tower and related buildings are in serious disrepair. Photo taken October 18, 2014.

Little Hollywood recently asked Rob Kirkwood, president of the Old Brewhouse Foundation, for specifics on the group's suggestions and interest in the property.

Kirkwood: George Heidgerken is still the owner of the Old Brewhouse property. The Old Brewhouse Foundation is asking the county to place the creation of a special purpose district and a property tax of about $0.35/$1,000 on the ballot.  The mission of the special purpose district would be to purchase and rehab the 1906 brewery complex into museums, art galleries, public gathering spaces and meeting rooms, large and small, over a period of many years.  We will ask Heidgerken about selling the property when we have a better idea about the county commissioners willingness to place the issue on the ballot.

Little Hollywood:  Please describe the group's idea of "rehab." Due to the condition, would the tower building be deconstructed and reassembled on site or in a different spot to accommodate this vision? It seems that everything you've described is similar to Heidgerken's vision. It seems there are multiple problems with that vision because of the location. Please explain.

Kirkwood: I agree there are multiple problems - all great community projects have challenges. Public recognition of the opportunities and challenges will create a facility that the community can be proud of.  The tower has been assessed by a structural engineer as actually in pretty good shape despite what you see.  It is built of concrete and brick, both materials that weather better than the wood roofs did.  It will require some major repairs and seismic retrofitting, but disassembly won't be necessary. Our project will be of a smaller scale than what Heidgerken is proposing. 

The Planned Action EIS that Tumwater prepared proposed three different levels of activity: 1. Do nothing; 2. Development within the existing foot print; 3. Expanding the foot print.

Heidgerken's published plans are at a strong Level 3 because the additional space is needed to create the synergy of commercial activities and support the private development of utilities, access and parking expenses. 

Our plan is closer to Level 2 - we would stay within the existing foot print other than building some level of parking facilities. Using public financing allows the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental success. The atmosphere would be more like a college campus instead of the traffic required for commercial activity.  The site does present challenges, but also some incredible opportunities. Our outreach at community events keeps finding people that are excited about museums, art studios, the brewery distillery institute and large public gathering spaces. 

According to the Foundation, and the meeting minutes of the August 25 work session, the first element of their plan would cost approximately $45 million in investment that could be converted to a countywide levy at $.30 to $.35 per $1,000 of assessed valuation costing the average homeowner of a $250,000 home approximately $75 to $87.50 annually.

During information sharing at public events, the response has been positive with most people conveying a willingness to pay the levy, says the Foundation.

Cynthia Stewart, another Foundation member, reviewed the possibility for the councilmembers of a bond issue of $100 million for inclusion of the large warehouse to be paid at six million for the next 20 years. The bond presents some challenges and includes different options as there is no available special district option that fits this specific scenario.

One of the options is a Park and Recreation Service Area (PRSA). Categories allowed by state statute are broad and include park, recreation facilities, and senior centers. Under that scenario through a countywide financing option, it would require all Thurston County cities to agree to participate and it would require a separate vote by the public. It would require a super majority, 60 percent, to pass.

A second option is under the Cultural Access Program recently passed by the Legislature. The option allows a 1/10th of one percent increase in sales tax countywide. The option wouldn’t generate as much money. The PRSA statute is broad and could entail the entire complex to include trails. The option is more indirect as it focuses on culture and population.

Stewart said the county commissioners have expressed interest in the proposal.

Above: The interior of the long building on the property that was built as a pulp mill could be used for high school reunions, weddings, and other special events, says the Foundation. The facility is 21,000 square feet and is 300 feet long and 70 feet wide.

For more stories and pictures of the Old Brewhouse, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com, and type key words into the search button.