|
Like many interested in the fate of Seattle's historic First United Methodist Church, Historic Seattle submitted comments on the draft environmental impact statement for the project conceived to replace the 1907 building. The environmental impact statement, as its name suggests, evaluates impacts to the environment - including traffic, air quality, and historic preservation, aesthetics, and other elements - and suggests ways to mitigate these impacts.
The details of our letter provide what we hope will be a step forward in the effort to find a viable alternative development that will get the church what it wants, and preserve the irreplaceable Beaux Arts building.
Michael Dorcy, Senior Land Use Planner
Department of Planning and Development
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98104-1331
Februrary 19, 2004
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 811 Fifth Avenue Project
by facsimile and by mail
On behalf of Historic Seattle, we provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a proposed 33-story office tower development that would demolish the extant 1907 sanctuary. The Beaux Arts style building, designed by James Schack during a time of great church building in this city, is the last historic house of worship in Seattle's commercial core. Its value to the city is immeasurable; its loss cannot be mitigated.
Founded in 1974 by charter, Historic Seattle is a legal entity through which citizens may participate in the preservation and enhancement of the historic heritage of the City of Seattle for the mutual pride and enjoyment of all citizens and the creation of a more livable environment.
The DEIS does not thoroughly outline alternatives, nor does it contain information pivotal to the argument that no economically feasible solution is possible which would preserve the historic 1907 sanctuary and achieve the church's goals. The purpose of the environmental impact statement as outlined by the State Environmental Protection Act is to provide objective information about the impacts and alternatives that can avoid these impacts.
The document is insufficient to evaluate impacts. Without a detailed description of alternatives, it is impossible to comment on their feasibility. Given the role of economics in this discussion, costs need to be attached to various options before their feasibility can be objectively evaluated and commented upon.
When Historic Seattle engaged First United Methodist Church in finding solutions that would be a win for both the church and preservation interests, we eventually came to an impasse. On June 6, 2003, Historic Seattle coordinated a feasibility workshop made up of individuals whose opinions and experience we considered to be as credible as possible.
The developers around the table quickly concluded that, based on their experience and their projections for market value in the next decade, the value of the site at Fifth and Marion was probably closer to 4 to 8 million rather than the church's estimate of 17 to 20 million. Without an agreement about the value of the property, alternative uses for the historic sanctuary could not be properly investigated. The group suggested getting a current appraisal.
The figures used to evaluate feasibility for the Fifth and Marion site as a part of the proposed development were gathered in the late 1990s when Seattle's tech boom was imagined to continue its steep and upward trajectory into the next decade. This, of course, didn't happen, and based on the opinions of the workshop participants, and informed, credible commentary published in press accounts, Seattle's downtown vacancy rates aren't going to improve much in the near and mid-term future.
The feasibility workshop participants stated that, given the current vacancy rates and other factors, the current project proposed for Fifth and Marion is economically infeasible. There is no market, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. The market conditions and use demands downtown are different than they were only five years ago. It may be that office use is not the most feasible option for the site now or in the future, but without a current analysis of conditions and options, neither Historic Seattle nor a developer potentially interested in any project at Fifth and Marion can move forward with "serious" assistance to the congregation. Is residential, hotel, governmental or some other use feasible?
Less than a week after the workshop, Historic Seattle presented representatives of First United Methodist Church with the developers' evaluation. We asked that the church re-evaluate their base numbers, and without this common ground, we could not move forward with an informed investigation of alternatives. They stated that while they appreciated what our group of developers had to say, appraisals are subjective, and that they felt confident in theirs. They had faith that eventually, the market would turn around, and the project could move forward. The workshop and the exchange between the church and our organization isn't mentioned within Section 3.3, page 6 in the document detailing the church's engagement with Historic Seattle and other entities interested in finding alternatives to demolition.
While we invited the church to participate in the feasibility workshop, they declined. Since the workshop, Historic Seattle applied for a number of grants that would fund an analysis of necessary feasibility issues, and other efforts that could move forward an open and informed evaluation of alternatives forward. We have since received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
We hope to see a preservation design charrette conducted before the final EIS is approved. Preservation design charrettes have proven to be a successful tool for evaluating and producing development solutions that meet the needs of property owners and the preservation interests of the community at large. The DEIS presents an "open house" option as mitigation for the proposed demolition. Information, to be valuable, needs to be shared within the context of problem solving, not after the EIS is approved. The church and the Rainier Club's forthright and open charrette participation is pivotal to its usefulness. Funding Historic Seattle has received for this effort could be used to help conduct a charrette.
The DEIS states (p. 24-25, Section 2.1.3) that a highrise alternative incorporating the historic sanctuary had been pursued in the 1980s by First City Equities. While this did not come into being, the negotiations between the church and the developer for a win-win solution suggest the viability of a similar option crafted today.
The DEIS notes that land swap alternatives have been investigated, but the document fails to describe evidence of this search. With whom did the church speak and what specific parcels were discussed?
There may be other development options that achieve the church's goals such as a partnership with a like entity such as First Presbyterian Church or Trinity Episcopal Parish Church who have a similar outreach mission. Collaboration with like interests may reduce costs of construction and increase the productivity of all partners. Again, without hard numbers used to evaluate feasibility, the benefits and drawbacks of such as partnership cannot be evaluated.
Additionally, should the Master Use Permit for this project be approved, Historic Seattle encourages the City of Seattle to not allow demolition of the property until funding for the development has been secured and can be proven. Seattle Municipal Code 25.12.835, a result of the 1992 demolition of the Music Hall prohibits the demolition of landmarks until financing for the replacement building is in place.
The DEIS provides a starting point for evaluating alternatives, but without concrete data about the proponent's objectives, including more than one alternative detailed, Historic Seattle cannot provide more substantive comments.
Stated objectives, as outlined in Section 1, page 1 of the DEIS are to:
** create sufficient land value to finance the construction of a new church facility designed to meet its religious, educational, and administrative and human service ministry needs and to create an endowment that offsets the operating costs assocated with the new facilities in accordance with the church budget;
** create a scenario to attract a co-developer by offering an opportunity to construct an office building that has sufficient floor area to generate the economics needed for the church to rebuild its facilities;
** create sufficient parking on-site to allow ownership of approximately 60 parking stalls for weekday use and the long-term right to use approximately 400 parking stalls in the balance of the garage on Sunday mornings;
** create new church facilities that provide a distinct church identity; reflect the current worship needs of its congregation and liturgy; occupy the south side of the church parcel to take advantage of morning sunlight; and allow the Church to better serve the human service ministry needs of the downtown.
We would like to see the following quantitative questions answered:
** How is the land value created and evaluated for the alternative?
** What is sufficient value to finance the construction of a new church facility?
** What is the value required to meet the church's religious needs? What is the value required to meet the church's educational needs?
** What is the value required to meet the church's administrative needs?
** What is the value required to meet the church's human service ministry needs?
** What is the value required to meet the church's endowment needs for operating cost?
** What is the value required to meet stated objectives and how is that value related to the church budget over the life of any constructed project?
With this information, we will be better able to facilitate a solution that meets the church's needs and preserves the 1907 for posterity.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
John Chaney
Executive Director
View last month's Preservation & Environment article Back
to Top | 
