The King County hearing examiner has upheld the City of Des Moines’ approval of a demolition permit for the historic Masonic Home property, but preservation advocates say they are now considering a further appeal to King County Superior Court.

In a 53-page decision issued Dec. 11, hearing examiner Peregrin K. Sorter of Laminar Law, PLLC denied consolidated appeals filed by Citizens for the Protection of Des Moines’ Historic Resources, the Des Moines Historical Society and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, affirming both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the demolition permit for the former Masonic Home of Washington.

“We feel the Hearing Examiner made the wrong decision on multiple points,” said Lloyd Lytle Jr., President of Citizens for the Protection of Des Moines’ Historic Resources. “We are currently discussing whether or not to file an appeal in King County Superior Court, due by January 1, 2026. We’ll need to fundraise again though, as the legal fees for the first appeal, at the City level, exceeded our fundraising, which was notable and appreciated, but lawyers charge high fees. We’ll let supporters know soon on our decision.”

The ruling concludes that appellants did not meet their burden of proving the city clearly erred or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving demolition of the property at 23660 Marine View Drive South in Des Moines. The examiner found that the city complied with the State Environmental Policy Act and properly evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse options.

The Masonic Home, completed in 1926, served as a retirement home for members of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Washington and includes a five story main building, water tower, pump houses, landscaped lawns and forested areas. The site has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and as a local historic district.

“Restoration and adaptive reuse of the Main Building would not be financially feasible under any of the studied use scenarios, even when applying historic preservation incentives,” Sorter wrote.

Despite that eligibility, the examiner agreed with the city’s conclusion that preservation and adaptive reuse of the main building were not financially feasible. Economic studies included in the environmental review found that rehabilitation would require a subsidy of roughly $50 million even after applying historic preservation tax credits and other incentives, depending on the proposed reuse scenario.

The decision also addressed arguments that the city should have pursued public private partnerships, affordable housing models or development in the eastern portion of the site to subsidize preservation. The examiner found those options were studied in detail and did not close the funding gap, and that SEPA does not require the city to secure funding for a private project.

“The public safety and revitalization benefits of removing unsafe and blighted structures outweigh the significant loss of historic and cultural fabric,” Sorter wrote.

Zenith Properties LLC purchased the site in 2019 after years of unsuccessful redevelopment efforts by prior owners. The demolition permit allows removal of the main building and other structures, with conditions requiring mitigation such as documentation of historic features and archaeological protections.

Preservation advocates argued in post hearing briefs that the city improperly narrowed its analysis and discounted viable alternatives, while the city and applicant countered that no realistic funding path for preservation was identified during the multi year review process.

With the examiner’s decision issued, appellants now face a Jan. 1, 2026 deadline to file any appeal in King County Superior Court.

Documents: