Project review is a critical part of development activity in Seattle. Although complex and at times confusing, the review process is one way to ensure that important factors are considered and accounted for as larger projects develop. Review identifies potential negative impacts of development, and also provides a mechanism for incorporating public comment into project planning.

For historic properties potentially affected by proposed projects, environmental review is extremely important. Such review, which is mandated by Washington's State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) legislation, and adapted by individual jurisdictions, is a critical mechanism for disclosing and dealing with adverse impacts that result from development. Adverse impacts to historic properties fall under this legislation.

Every jurisdiction in Washington State has the authority to implement its own policies under SEPA. Although some jurisdictions have chosen to directly adopt the policies set forth under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Seattle has an extensive body of SEPA legislation.

Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.05.675 §H.1.b states that "Historic sites, structures, districts and archaeological sites may be directly or indirectly threatened by development or redevelopment projects" (emphasis added). This includes both landmarks that are adjacent to proposed projects, as well as historic structures and sites that lie directly in the path of development.

In Seattle, environmental review is part of the Master Use Permit (MUP) process. For an overview of SEPA and its role for historic preservation, see An Introduction to How SEPA and Environmental Review Affect Historic Preservation in our July 2002 issue.

Under SMC, there are sixteen categories of projects that will automatically trigger an environmental review, such as projects that are sited in environmentally sensitive, habitat or geologically unstable areas, near streams or shorelines, or projects involving relatively high-density development for their respective zoning.

Projects meeting one or more of the sixteen criteria are required to submit a completed Environmental Checklist, an 18-page form in which possible impacts are identified through targeted questions. Impacts to historic properties or potentially historic properties are identified on this form.

Answers to this form are then analyzed by DCLU Land Use Planners to determine whether the project will potentially have adverse effects on the environment and surrounding community. Planners then issue a determination as to whether there is a significant impact, and whether an EIS is needed or what other conditions should be imposed before the project is allowed to proceed.

City Landmarks and SEPA

The process of documenting and mitigating impacts to historic resources is outlined by an Interdepartmental Agreement between the Department of Neighborhoods, which has authority over City Landmarks, and the DCLU, which administers the permitting process, as well as by SMC 25.02.675.

When a proposed project involves an historic or potentially historic site or structure, and the project is subject to SEPA review, the DCLU refers the application to the Historic Preservation Office in the Department of Neighborhoods for review. Generally speaking, demolition or alteration of an historically significant structure is considered an adverse impact.

City policy also accounts for projects that may have an impact on adjacent or nearby landmark properties.

Projects that are subject to SEPA review are referred to the historic preservation office if there is a city landmark in the project area, if there is a structure over 50 years old within the project area, or if the project area is determined to be adjacent to, across the street from, or abutting a city landmark.

In the event that a proposal involves an older structure that is not a designated City of Seattle Landmark, the DCLU Land Use Planner in charge of the project will make a preliminary determination as to whether the structure "appears" to be historic, based upon historic building inventory information, public comment and consultation with Historic Preservation Office staff.

At this point, the Historic Preservation Officer determines whether or not the structure is historic, in which case the review for historic impacts is over. The HPO may need more information to make her determination. If so, she will state that the structure merits further review.

When demolition or alteration an eligible or existing landmark occurs, the DCLU will generally initiate the Environmental Impact Statement scoping process, in which the impact areas are identified, and the preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement follows. The Landmarks Board then considers the structure in question for its historical significance.

For landmarks or properties older than 50 years that are adjacent to or across the street from projects under review, the process is similar. But first, it must be determined whether the potential impact to the nearby landmark property is a real issue.

This determination depends on the professional judgment of DCLU planners and Historic Preservation Office staff. The guiding principle is whether the relationship between the project and the resource is clear. Oftentimes, DCLU staff will consult with Beth Chave (Seattle's Landmarks Coordinator) or other staff of the Historic Preservation Office for guidance.

For instance, a project may be spatially close to a historic property, but have no discernible relationship with the landmark that would necessitate review for historic impacts under the adjacency rule. Conversely, a proposed development across the street from a historic property may have potentially dramatic impacts, in which case it would be reviewed for compatibility with the historic structure.

Depending on the proposed development and the nature of the historic resource, Historic Preservation staff may require measures to "insure the compatibility of the proposed project with the color, material and architectural character of the designated landmark and to reduce impacts on the character of the landmark's site."

A short walk around the downtown area of Seattle, where new and old share cramped quarters on city blocks, illustrates the importance of these considerations -- just look at examples such as the Washington Mutual Tower and the Brooklyn Building on Second Avenue, or the Metrocenter YMCA building and the IDX Tower on Fourth Avenue. Although each project has unique characteristics, such as the use of an in block TDR transfer for the IDX Tower, these examples illustrate the kinds of relationships the older buildings can have with new developments.

Historic impacts to adjacent and nearby landmarks are a required component of the "Analysis and Decision" part of the project review. DCLU planners have the authority to approve conditionally a project subject to the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Office. Measures that can be recommended are outlined in the municipal code, and may include changes to the proposed facade treatment, streetscape, or design treatment, in addition to changes in siting within the project property.

A Good Start

The environmental review process is an important part of historic preservation practice, and will continue to increase its effectiveness as preservation awareness is raised among the public, property owners, and city planners. The DCLU and the Department of Neighborhoods are working to increase the communication between their respective staffs.

The process is not perfect, however.

Projects that don't rise to the level of SEPA can create a situation in which historic preservation falls through the cracks. Currently, there is limited regulatory recourse for such projects. Potential landmarks that have not yet been nominated can fall victim to redevelopment under these circumstances with little review, especially where there is little community reaction.

Projects falling outside of SEPA review include those involving single-family residences, or smaller scale residential developments downtown. This loophole can lead to tragic consequences, such as the sudden demolition of the Twin Teepees restaurant in 2001, which surprised many Seattle residents. Occurrences such as this highlight the importance of community action.

Although there is currently no regulatory basis for the DCLU to refer a project to the Historic Preservation Office for review if the SEPA threshold criteria are not met, this does not prevent anyone in the community from nominating a potentially historic structure for landmarks consideration.

Properties that have been designated as landmarks within the City of Seattle require the approval of the Landmarks Board for any modifications to the exterior, and sometimes the interior, of the building or structure.

In an effort to prevent the demolition of significant community landmarks yet to be recognized, the Historic Preservation Office is currently working to update an inventory, conducted in the late 1970s, of potentially significant properties in the neighborhoods around Seattle.

This will help raise public awareness of significant properties and the tools by which they are protected. The survey will also help DCLU make informed decisions about proposed projects early in the process. For instance, a DCLU planner will be able to check to see whether a project is on an inventory of potentially significant buildings, and make recommendations based upon this to the applicant. The applicant is then spared the surprise of an extended review process and is better equipped to plan a successful scenario.

View last month's Public Policy article

Back to Top