Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 1

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Note: names, outside of public officials, have been removed for privacy.

First things first: * I support extending the one-year extension for consideration of rehab proposals for the seminary at St. Edward State Park. * If a citizens advisory committee is formed, I volunteer to be a member…”qualifications” below.

I attended the public meeting held in Kenmore on August 25.

A decade ago, when McMenamins submitted their proposal, I attended those meetings in support of it. I learned soooo much about the seminary (the park staff gave tours at the time), both from a building perspective, i.e., internal storm water collection system, and the people’s stories that went with it. A brother-in-law even attended school/seminary there. Mostly, I heard a vocal unreasonable opposition to the plan. A lawyer/bicyclist who was part of that group (and who was citing RCWs at the recent meeting) was particularly aggressive. In fact, I made my way to Normandy Park one snowy day for a commission hearing and he was there; he had the audacity to say to me, “I can’t believe you are still coming to these meetings,” suggesting, I suppose, that my support for the McMenamins was a lost cause.

I believe the citizens of Kenmore woke up and realized what a gem they lost (thanks, in part, to the McMenamins construction in nearby Bothell) and turned out in force on August 25th to support the most recent turn of events. I was thrilled! And Daniels Real Estate appears to be just the right developer to take on this project in the vacuum left by the McMenamin brothers.

At the August meeting, it was suggested that input be provided by a citizens advisory committee. While I think that the state parks’ public process in these matters is open and inclusive, should such a committee be formed, I volunteer to be a member: * I live in the Arrowhead neighborhood. Very honestly, if our neighborhood thinks a 100-room hotel will create traffic, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to commuters who will be avoiding I-405 and its HOT lanes once they open later this month. * I am a retired (early, due to the recession) civil engineer, with experience in wastewater, storm water (and I hold a current ESCL certification), environmental engineering, and development. As such, I understand that the footprint for construction will not encroach upon park visitors’ use of St. Edward. * I prefer truth to hyperbole.

Thank you for continuing to include the public in your deliberations.

I am very supportive of the current proposal to rehabilitate the building. As an Audubon member, my main concern is that the ability of the grounds to support wildlife and an outside experience for park users be maintained.

Michael,

Thank you for your prompt reply and responses to my questions. The SEELC proposal did include the building’s renovation and a program schedule. i’m sure (name removed) has our proposal if you’d be interested in reviewing it. i can’t seem to find it in my files. Currently, we use the outdoor spaces of the

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

park. Because we don’t charge for our classes we can’t afford the rental costs. We stage a garage sale every spring to pay for the insurance required by the Park.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to talk to (name removed) about last weeks meeting. (I’ve lost my voice due to pneumonia, bummer:( ) There have been lots of emails flying around generated by the ‘Friends’ of the Park as you can imagine. I’m not sure what (name removed)’s take on the Daniels proposal is. I do think that it would be great if you joined us at our board meeting. I’ll let you know if that is possible and when.

On Sep 1, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) wrote:

(name removed)

It was wonderful seeing you last week. Thank you so much for coming to the meeting. I want to address some of your questions:

2) While I understand the preference for ownership prior to development, there are examples of development on land grant properties with 99 year leases. I am concerned that once developed the hotel could be sold to the highest bidder who has no appreciation for the values inherent in St. Eds. If there is a transfer of ownership from public to private there should be safeguards that would protect the park and its users.

• Today, a 99 year lease is not possible by statute. We can only enter into 50 year leases maximum. Introducing a bill to change this law takes time and who knows if it will pass. Daniels would

need more than 50 years, but I think he is entertaining this concept. Great idea, however, and we are currently pursuing a change in statute.

• If the land is sold, State Parks will place deed restrictions on the property to ensure that a future buyer appreciates the value of Saint Edward. Deed restrictions will provide clear limitations.

3) If there could be some kind of partnership between Parks, Daniels Realty and Kenmore to restore the pool as part of the package it would be a highly valued amenity in our community.

• Sadly, the pool building is beyond repair for reuse as a pool. A new building would be required.

4) Is it possible to include a percentage of the hotel’s profits to benefit the park’s maintenance, like an charitable endowment fund that would benefit the hotels and the park. Park maintenance is currently minimal.

• Yes, a land exchange deal could incorporate this provision.

I'm curious, did your SEELC proposal involve restoration of the building? The problem is that the building cannot be used "as is" beyond the rental of the dining hall. A new use of the building requires building, fire, and ADA code updates as well as seismic, plumbing, and electrical upgrades. The cost to simply stabilize the building ranges between 13 and 15 million dollars.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

The cost to make the building habitable for a new use is much higher.

Without doubt, classroom space costs less to construct than a hotel, yet the cost to adaptively reuse the Seminary for classroom space would still be in the millions above stabilization. So far, the only economically viable proposal we received was associated with the Bastyr plan (2014).

What kind of space requirements do you have in order for you to operate the SEELC? Let’s see what we can do. If you want me to join your group for a small meeting to discuss I’ll be there. : )

Thank you for your email. I hope to see you and (name removed) again soon. Call me anytime with questions.

Michael

Michael,

I have attached a letter voicing my concerns regarding the proposed development of St. Edwards State Park. Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Micheal Hankinson,

I am concerned about the proposal to develop St. Edwards State Park for commercial use as a boutique destination hotel. For many years the park has served as a valuable outdoor space for the community and surrounding areas. Private development would forever jeopardize the public access to usable parklands that have been originally designated for public use. Although the developers plan to purchase the McDonald property adjacent to the park, it is not a fair trade to the citizens who use and access the park. The McDonald’s property is steep ravines and streams that are not accessible for the disabled and elderly. The area that the seminary building occupies is the most valuable for the state residents use.

The uncertainty of future parks use warrants the park commission to reconsider the developer’s proposal. To outright buy state parkland, it puts the foot in the door for developers to bring future projects to the park. The developers have denied any interest in leasing the property, thus inviting private investors with financial interests. While it may seem like an easy solution to simply swap the land for the McDonald’s property, there will likely be litigation if you decided to pursue the developer’s proposal.

The property that the seminary building occupies is more valuable than the existing structure itself. Preserving the state land for recreational and public use should valued above plans to simply develop the property. Please consider that once the land is sold, it will forever be lost to public.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Mr. Michael Hankinson,

Thank you for the opportunity to learn about the rehabilitation proposal for the Saint Edward Seminary at the workshop held on August 25th. I am in favor of the proposal Mr. Daniels presented and hope the Commission will extend the deadline for rehabilitating the Seminary building.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

Please forward my comments, below, to the State Parks Commissioners for their consideration during tomorrow's meeting. I am also attaching my comments to this email, should that format be more convenient.

September 2, 2015

Dear State Parks Commissioners,

I am a Kenmore resident and frequent visitor to St. Edward State Park, and I am writing to request that you deny the proposed sale of St. Edward State Park property to a private developer. Selling off this land is not in the best interests of the people of Washington State.

It has been said that the envisioned enterprise would be a “lodge,” similar to the great lodges built in some of the destination National Parks, such as Yellowstone, Mt. Rainier, and Olympic National Parks. However, the ownership of the lodges at these parks is retained by the National Park Service, and concessionaires are hired to run them in accordance with the values of the National Park Service. Selling the St. Edward seminary building and property, a piece of prime real estate, outright to a private firm would throw the future of the rest of the park into uncertainty, and eliminate the ability of the state to manage the entirety of the park as a continuous whole. Should the business, the building, and/or the property be mismanaged or sold again to some other entity, the incalculable value of the rest of the park would potentially be jeopardized and the general public would sustain an immeasurable loss.

This is especially important in the case of St. Edward because the most valuable aspect of the park is its natural environment: the mature and wild Pacific Northwest forest and forested, undeveloped lakeshore. Located in one of western Washington’s major population centers, the park offers a large portion of the Washington State public the opportunity to experience a native Northwest forest. As the population of the Seattle metropolitan area grows, its citizens flock to the peaceful, restorative natural environment afforded by St. Edward Park to picnic, play cricket, bicycle, hike in the woods, attend Wilderness Camp, and swim in Lake Washington from an undeveloped shoreline.

With that in mind, I believe that the seminary building, if it were restored, should be used for the public, as a museum and/or for educational purposes, to complement and enhance the public’s understanding of the natural and wild sections of the park. Most important, the ownership of the building and the land it occupies should be retained by the state of Washington. The state should not lose sight of what is most valuable about St. Edward State Park: its natural environment and the ability of the general public to freely enjoy it. I urge you to reject the proposal.

September 2, 2015

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Dear State Parks Commissioners,

I urge you to reject the proposal.

Mr. Hankinson: We support without reservation the request for a 12-month extension of the time allowed for submission of a specific, detailed development plan for the St. Edward Seminary. Thank you.

I am requesting that the Parks Commission give Daniels RE or any other interested parties a year to come up with a proposal to save the old Seminary Building.

Thank you for considering this.

Mr. Hankinson,

I attended the most recent meeting at the Utility District where you and Mr. Daniels presented. While I believe that Daniels would do a good job of saving the seminary, I believe more strongly that the Parks

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Commission should not try to save the seminary building at all. Yes, I know that based upon public input you have taken the position to save the seminary. However, the general public is only now coming to understand what a public-private partnership is: it puts a commercial enterprise at the heart of the park.

We need to preserve the peaceful nature of the park and not the minor historical value of the seminary building. In fact, as a boy raised Catholic, I wonder how many former students have horrible memories of their time in that institution. In any case, since the State cannot afford to maintain the seminary, we need to work towards mothballing it and limiting state liability as you suggested, or finding someway to teardown the entire structure.

Please, let there be no commercial enterprise at the heart of the park, let's remove the seminary.

Dear Mr. Hankinson:

We wish to express our wholehearted support for extending the deadline for rehabilitation proposals for the St. Edward seminary building. The proposed developer has an excellent reputation for renovating historic buildings, and it makes sense to give him the time to finalize a proposal to accomplish this. Without this extension, the building is likely doomed to continued decay and demolition. That would be a very sad thing to have happen to this community treasure.

Please extend the deadline.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

Thank you for coming up to Kenmore for the meeting on August 25.

I liked hearing from you, as well as from Mr. Kevin Daniels.

Unfortunately, I had to leave the meeting about half an hour early, so was not present for the show-of-hands vote. I'm writing to encourage the parks department to extend the deadline to further study the

Daniels Real Estate proposal.

I think what Daniels is proposing is a great idea. It may be our last chance to preserve this amazing historic landmark.

Thank you for your time.

Hi Michael,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Thanks so much for your efforts on behalf of our beloved park. As you surely noticed, emotions run high when our park’s future is the issue. You certainly managed a tough crowd well. I’m so glad that your recognize the cultural value of the Seminary building and advocate for it’s restoration.

I’m a member of the board of the Saint Edward’s Evironmental Learning Center, www.seelc.org. Lead by (name removed), we advocated for the creation of an Evironmental Learning/Community Center as an alternative to the McMenamin’s Pub proposal. We worked with our state reps and worked on grants to try to find a way to salvage the building and re-purpose it in a way compatible with park use. For the last five or so years the SEELC offers Wild Wednesdays in the Park, free classes featuring wildlife and engagement with nature. They have been well attended. An historic tour of the building lead by Ranger Mohammed was a popular session that capped the summer classes. I’m sharing this with you so that you better understand my interest in St. Ed’s beyond the fact that it is my backyard. I noticed that no mention was made of SEELC as proposed options in the past, although we went through all the necessary protocol required by the process.

I want to make the following comments for the Commissioners just in case my slip of paper got lost in the shuffle.

1) Yes, I support a year extension of the deadline for proposal so that Kevin Daniels firm can develop a proposal for the restoration of the building. I thank that he has the credentials for the job.

3) If there could be some kind of partnership between Parks, Daniels Realty and Kenmore to restore the pool as part of the package it would be a highly valued amenity in our community.

5) The hotel should be open the park visitors, much like the lodges at our National Parks ( Crescent Lake Lodge, Paradise, Longmire), making it a destination amenity in the Park.

6) This is a great opportunity to demonstrate to the state the creative potential of public/private partnerships in managing our natural and cultural resources.

Thanks again for your creative leadership on behalf of St. Edwards Park and its priceless Seminary Building.

Dear Mr. Hankinson - I have had the privilege of living within one mile of St. Edward State Park for over 35 years. I was married, my children attended preschool, and we attended church at St. Thomas Center before it was sold to Bastyr University. Bastyr University is like the St. Edward Seminary buildings - surrounded by state park lands. We have been

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 frequent and consistent visitors to St. Edward during this time, partaking of its passive recreation.

I would implore you to persuade the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to extend the deadline for Rehabilitation Proposals for the seminary buildings at St. Edward State Park. It creates negative energy in the park and community to have these buildings slowly deteriorating from lack of use and maintenance.

To preserve these historic buildings, we must compromise. Realistically there is not a nonprofit organization on the horizon with deep financial pockets to lease or purchase the buildings and make the necessary improvements. A decision to do nothing is ultimately the same as deciding to bulldoze them tomorrow. Kevin Daniels of Daniels Real Estate is familiar with the opposition and many of the challenges of this property. He is offering a solution that would satisfy the McDonald family, prevent loss of trails and beach access in the park, provide rehabilitation and preservation of St. Edward Seminary as a publicly accessible space, and provide jobs and tax revenue to the local and state economy.

In closing, I encourage the extension of this deadline to allow Daniels Real Estate the opportunity to more fully evaluate and construct their proposal, provide for community buy- in, and for the commissioners to negotiate with his organization. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

I am an alum of St. Edward Seminary. I don't claim that this gives me any particular expertise on how parks work or what should be done with this one, but I feel comfortable passing on that I've shared with my listserve of 20+ alums my comments on the meeting last week.

I general, I support further study of the Daniels proposal. It just makes sense to give it a try. If it doesn't pencil out, we can start over having lost a year but not much else.

I opposed the McMenamin's proposal because, although I like McMenamin's and brewpubs in general, the brewpub experience has little to do with the central values of the park. The security firm was even less consistent, and could not have allowed general access to the building. However, the lodge proposal could (and at this time it's all vague) fit in well with the 300+ acres of accessible nature - indeed, that might be its great draw.

There is natural concern about ownership and control. I would like some option for local investment by members of the public, perhaps direct buys of shares or something. But all that is negotiable and should not stand in the way of the Big Idea.

I would like to participate in public discussion and development of ideas, and will encourage my fellow alums to do so. I encourage your efforts to connect with (name removed) facebook discussion at https://www.facebook.com/groups/146887140305/

I have further thoughts at : http://rewinn.blogspot.com/2015/08/daniels-proposal-for-st-eds-first.html

So in short: let the Commissioners vote to give this thing a year to negotiate.

Thanks ...

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

St. Edward Seminary Class of 1973

Subject: Seminary - classroom space?

Peter,

I've been working with REI and they wanted to know if there is any classroom space available at the seminary for a combined classroom and field workshop. Is this something where we could set up a tour with them, or do we need to wait for a possible renovation?

Thanks!

I am a thirty year resident of Finn Hill and user of St. Edwards State Park. I support the proposed restoration and renovation of St. Edward's Seminary. The building should be preserved and put to use. The tax dollars from the proposed hotel & conference center would be a boon to the local economy and help support park maintenance. The facilities would provide lodging for special events held at the park and a place for residents of Finn Hill to walk to for spa and restaurant services.

Please do not let the vocal minority thwart this project as they have others in the past. In recent years, I have seen decline in the park's trail maintenance, closure of the pool, and dilapidation of the seminary building itself due to lack of funding. Local residents who do not want any help from private parties should either offer to provide their own funds for park maintenance and building renovation, or accept the reality of the eventual closing of the park.

Thank you,

Dear sir.. my name is (name removed), since 1981 I have been a resident at Kenmore Heights , a neighborhood within city of Kenmore where St Edwards Park is located .

I am very concerned about loosing park property to private enterprise. I believe fracturing integrity of park property can cause weakening of the fiber and the fracture spread around further deteriorating this beautiful park's integrity.

Additionally Indigenous artifacts found at park property may challenge park ownership, allowing a variety of commercial and entertainment activities unfit to park and our city's characteristics to take place.

Additionally as I suggested at the August 25th meeting, the target private enterprise after taking ownership, may find development difficult and subject the project into several changes including changing ownership and/or allowing further degradation of the establishment to save invested equity.

While I support the renovation and acceptable private enterprise activities in park to save the seminary building, I suggest the following to insure that the certain

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

level of quality of activities befitting of the seminary building's iconographical values are maintained.

#1. Avoid sales, instead allow up to but less than a century lease with option to renew. i.e. 99 years.

This condition will allow the new lessee to continue restoration, RoI, and profit.

Lease can be renewed for unlimited number of times.

#2. Disallow lease subjugation, transfer and sublet or resale to prevent lease transfer and quality decline so that lease is released to state if project fails instead of transfer to other less desirable solutions by lease holder.

#3. In case the sale is insisted upon then I suggest the land beneath would be leased out avoiding fracturing parkland and integrity of park while building can be sold and renovated to function following regulated use parameters.

Thank you for your attention.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further discussions are desired.

This is in response to the Seattle Times article regarding converting seminary buildings to a historic lodge. I think it's a great idea. The building is beautiful (from the outside, anyway). I love the old lodges. If this is properly run it should have high occupancy for good rates. And I hope the state would benefit from that income.

Regarding the rest the park, I've hiked there as well as been there for concerts. I do not think having a lodge there should have a great impact on other uses of the park.

State Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff:

At your September 10,2015 I support the Commission extending the deadline for rehabilitation of the Seminary Building at St. Edward State Park.

At the same meeting, I suggest the following guidance be given to Kevin Daniels in regards to the proposal and information provided at the August 25, 2015 meeting ( which I attended) and in reference to his August 12, 2015 letter to the Commission.

A. Support a Rehabilitation/ Lease option. Do not consider a Rehabilitation/ Sale option. The building's long -term use and benefit to the region and the state can only be guaranteed by a lease. I suggest a lease no longer than 35 years, and preferably 25 years.

B. The McDonald Property ( whether as replacement compensation for a lease or sale) is NOT equivalent to the Seminary property in the central, highly accessible location in the Park. As an individual with a handicap and accessibility issues, I would not be able to utilize the McDonald Property. I can and do actively recreate in and around the Seminary and have done so for over 35 years.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

C. Direct consideration and/ or restoration of the Carole Ann Wald Pool as an aquatic facility used by the public.

D. The approximately 8 acres outlined in red at the August 25th presentation include areas of Historical Cultural Significance-- in particular the circular monument area -- the central focal point of the great lawn, in front of the original entry to the Seminary Building. This was the site of the statue of Mary, now located at St. James Cathedral in the entry courtyard. This area and the lawn south of the pool ( volley ball court) are actively used for recreation by frequent visitors to the park and should be reserved for such use.

Thank you for considering these issues as guidance as you extend the rehabilitation option.

Dear Mr. Hankinson:

Thank you for your presentation on Tuesday, August 25th. I left the meeting before the "show of hands" vote was done at the end. I am expressing my vote here: I would like to encourage the Washington State Park Commissioners to extend the deadline so that the Daniels Real Estate proposal can be further studied. I would really love for the Seminary to be saved & refurbished for public use.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I was at the meeting in Kenmore re the rehabilitation proposal for the St. Edward seminary. Please extend the rehab plan for a year.

My thoughts about St. Edward park:

1. It is most important to acquire the 9 acres to the north along the shoreline to add to the park.....McDonald property.

2. Study the option of a 99-year lease as opposed to selling of the seminary. Once the land is sold, it is gone, but maybe State Parks would like that, I don't know.

3. See why the developer wants 8 acres of land...... so much of the prime flat land around the seminary which is used a lot by the public.

4. In all future discussions about redevelopment, see if the pool can be included.

It will be interesting to follow this proposal.

Please! Do not sell this park to a developer! Take time to consider a public ownership option.

Our parks are precious, especially as open space is being paved at a head-spinning rate. Please do not sell out the citizens who enjoy the peace and beauty of the park.

Say NO to boutique hotel development!!

Hi Michael,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

As a long time visitor to this park, I think too much emphasis is being given to the building and not enough to what the park really is - a unique and natural place on the shores of Lake Washington. I see this land-for-building swap as a convenient exit for a developer to unload a property that has been on the market for years and is basically unsaleable due to the fact is is steeply sloped and potentially prone to landslides.

Converting the building to a hotel sounds like a tempting idea, but I feel it would change the overall character of the park and bring a sense of the urban world into this little wilderness oasis that we have here. I don't picture how we can have hundreds of extra people living day and night in the park and maintain that sense of getting away from it all out in nature which is what I feel this park is really all about.

Other concerns I have, given this park gets tons of visitors on summer weekends, where will the extra parking come from and will green space be paved over to accommodate them? Also, it sounds like this will be an expensive hotel, similar to Willows Lodge and will this really benefit any of the local community, or is this going to be yet another perk for the elite in our area?

While I will probably visit the hotel if it is built (especially if there is a restaurant), I would almost rather see the building condemned and allowed to go slowly go to ruin as it is, in my opinion nothing more than a picturesque backdrop to the main lawn area

If you do go ahead and make the land swap, I think this will change the overall landscape of the park forever and I'm going to vote No to this plan

Dear Michael Hankinson,

Please allow Saint Edward Seminary to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation would require resources well beyond the State Parks' means. I encourage you to allow Daniels Real Estate to go forward with this important restoration project.

Dear WA St Park and Recreation Commission,

I am one of many people who have spent much time enjoying and preserving the park. The Friends of St Edward State Park group, have created Interpretive Signs for the State Park, so the park visitor may read about the history of the Seminary and the origin of the State Park. The bicycling group, EMBA. have spent much energy repairing, maintaining the trails and sponsoring bike workshops.

Skandia Folkdance Society has sponsored MidsommerFest at the State Park many years and shares their stage with other groups during the summer. The City of Kenmore sponsors the Music in the Park series during July and August. There are Girl Scout and Boy Scouts who perform community service. There are many groups of volunteers who come out and clear brush and pull ivy. I have only named part of the people who help preserve and who use the State Park. The Park is visited, used for many marriages, family and social gatherings - loved by many people.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

This State Park occupies a significant place in history of the community and in the history of the Pacific Northwest. Because the State Park had only one previous owner, the Seattle Archdiocese, whose architect developed the buildings and landscaping, it is basically a time capsule of that era and building style. The Seminary was (for its era) fully modern school with electricity, heated rooms, hot and cold water. The Sulpician Fathers who taught the classes were well educated and taught classes that ranged from grammar, math, Latin and modern biology. The quality of education that those children and young adults received created a lasting impact on the society that they live in. Bishop O'Dea dream to have a Seminary for the Pacific Northwest paid off, creating several generations of educated young men who influenced the cultural and spiritual well being of the Pacific Northwest.

The State Park is a wonderful combination of desirable features for both active and passive recreation. It is sad that other potential aspects cannot be developed due to lack of funds and personnel. It cannot be used as a community center/resource center. It cannot be used as base for outdoor/wilderness education and tours. A compromise to preserve the integrity of the entire park must be made.

The most wonderful aspect of the State Park is that it has remained an oasis of urban green and woodsiness while the surrounding community is in the grips of housing development. The State Park and several other parks close by are linked together, an adventure waiting for the hardy hiker or bicyclist. It would be great to have pedestrian safe trails and greenery that extended all the way from the Burke Gilman Trail to the Kirkland waterfront and Totem Lake area.

I echo the sentiment of the majority of the people at the meeting (pictures attached) - grant a 1 year extension for Daniels Real Estate to make his case.

I would like to see an option explored for a 50 or 99 year lease IF financing is possible.

I'm in support of extending the deadline for rehabilitation of the St Edward Seminary building. And I am delighted that Daniel's has a great concept for the building. I also hope that State Parks does develop an advisory group as Gerry Pollett suggested. Something like the CAMP group would be great. Thanks much!

Michael: Please pass along to the commission the attached resolution, which was adopted unanimously Tuesday by the board of directors of the Kenmore Heritage Society. Thank you. A resolution from the Kenmore Heritage Society

WHEREAS the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission will vote on September 10 whether to extend by one year its deadline for vacating the historic St. Edward Seminary in St. Edward Park in Kenmore Washington; and

WHEREAS the seminary building, which operated as a boys school and seminary for young Catholic men from 1931 to 1976, is in an advanced state of decline and disrepair and “vacating” it would amount to abandonment of a historical jewel; and

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

WHEREAS Kevin Daniels, a widely respected Seattle developer with a passion for restoration and preservation of historical buildings, has requested a one-year extension of the deadline to allow him adequate time to submit a specific, detailed proposal for restoration of the seminary; and

WHEREAS it is our belief that it is possible to redevelop and preserve the seminary for commercial use while maintaining the natural esthetic values of St. Edward park,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kenmore Heritage Society urges the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission to approve the one-year extension giving Kevin Daniels time to submit a development plan for the St. Edward Seminary.

Approved by the board of directors of the Kenmore Heritage Society, September 1, 2015

Thumbs up from Seattle Times…

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/both-parks-and-historic-buildings-should-thrive-at-saint- edward/

Dear Sir,

This is to express enthusiastic support for the conversion of St. Edward Seminary building to an historic lodge. I believe the project as proposed and written up in The Seattle Times on Monday, August 24th, 2015 would be a great boon to the local community and the State and perhaps further to the country. This conversion would solve the problem of an expensive, crumbling structure needing increasingly expensive maintenance, to a useful, productive solution which would enhance park visitors’ experience whether or not they actually stay at the lodge. I particularly appreciate that the lodge would be on only eight acres of the site, would be owned and managed by an outside party, and waterfront acreage would be donated to the park. This seems like a win/win solution. I hope this can be worked out . I have enjoyed many walks at the St. Edward Park over the years and am saddened by the run- down condition of the building. Further down the road, perhaps the lodge could host small, outdoor concerts and/or a small observatory? That could increase lodge visits/stays to help them get business.

Anyway, congratulations on finding an answer to the problem and good luck going forward.

Hello, I am writing in support renovation of the St. Edwards seminary. This beautiful building is an important heritage for this area. The lodge seems a very good idea.

As you may know, when I was president of Bastyr University we seriously looked into remodeling the facilities in the late 90s. However, the limited lease duration offered by the state made the project financially unfeasible. Strong recommendation that this be set up in a way that works financially for all involved.

Dear State Parks and Recreation Commission:

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I just read the article in the Seattle Times today regarding development plans for Saint Edward Seminary. I think if Daniels Real Estate Firm can restore and save this beautiful building, they should be given the opportunity to do so. It is a lovely park that I have had the chance to visit and hope this piece of history can be saved. If this developer has a good track record of restoring historic buildings, the Seminary will again be an asset and treasure to the area. I hope you will allow this building to be saved.

Dear Mr. Hankinson, I am in strong support of the proposal to have Daniels Real Estate firm renovate the Seminary into a hotel in the vein of the great lodges in Yellowstone, Rainier, and others. This is a great opportunity which all should support for many reasons. First and foremost, it is a natural fit for this beautiful, but decaying, structure. The proposal will preserve the building, and provide a magnificent setting for visitors to stay. Visitors to national parks love the outdoors, and are exactly the demographic you want to attract. There is a dearth of places to stay in the Kenmore/Lake Forest Park area. I know because I live in a condo, and can only accommodate one friend or extended family member when they come to visit. Scores of other people are in the same situation. You hate to have visitors stay all the way in downtown Seattle, but there's very little choice. There's also the economic benefit to Kenmore, which should not be overlooked. There will be those who oppose this development because of the perceived additional traffic, but this argument rings false. Those who come to stay at a national park lodge do not all come at the same time, much less the same week or month. My guess is the majority of those who would come would do so in the summer, when traffic is lighter because of no school buses. Kenmore has already missed one good opportunity (McMenamins), and we may well be down to our last chance to preserve the seminary, rather than tear it down. Please do all you can to make this proposal a reality for us, and for generations to come.

Michael, I just finished reading an article about Saint Edwards Park and the possible involvement by Kevin Daniels. About four years ago I took a real estate listing to sell a property right next to the Seahawk Stadium, after repeated efforts by other developers it was Kevin that just a few weeks ago was able to close the sale. While other developers tried to put a deal together and work with the city and Pioneer Preservation Board it was Kevin Daniels that had the vison, the ability to work with the board and city and the financial ability to successfully put a deal together and close a sale on the original terms of the sale. Daniels will save the iconic building that will now have a greater use that will insure its survival for many decades to come.

Please feel free to call for further comments. With greater notice I would attend the meeting tomorrow night and make my comments in public.

Greetings Mr. Hankinson:

I urge you to read my message and to reconsider allowing a developer to turn the Saint Edward Park seminary building into a lodge or hotel.

I was very dismayed and saddened to hear that our beloved, tranquil Saint Edward Park is once again being targeted for development. As someone who has hiked this park three times a week for years and treasured its peacefulness, I shudder to think of the effect of the traffic, crowds, noise and hubbub that will be generated by a hotel. The developer says that he wants to “take visitors back in time, to create a

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

true oasis in the middle of an urban setting.” The park is truly an oasis in its current state, but it will no longer be once its roads and trails are overrun by tourists and other hotel residents. The developer’s offer to purchase an additional 10 acres, to add to the existing 316 acres, rings a bit hollow.

Many of us who regularly hike in the park treasure the forested hills far more than the building. The trails help us escape the city and bring us into unspoiled nature. Although the building is historic and beautiful, saving it is not worth the cost of losing the ambiance of the forest. In addition, adding crowds to the park trails will likely be a detriment to the myriad birds and other wildlife that reside there.

I urge the State Parks and Recreation Commission to abandon any efforts at development, and instead, to let the park be, and to allow it to retain its current character.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Don,

Good afternoon, I hope this message finds you well! Senator McAuliffe requested I pass on the message that she will be unable to attend tomorrow evenings meeting, but is supportive of preserving the seminary building. Can we follow up after the meeting for a recap or next steps?

Dear Michael Hankinson,

My wife, (name removed), and I read with great interest the Seattle Times article regarding the proposed plans by Developer Kevin Daniels. Coincidentally we spent most of the day yesterday walking around the Saint Edwards grounds, hiking trails and asking questions with your Ranger Christine who was on the premises. We are life long residents of Lake Forest Park and hope you will be successful in saving this important historical treasure. We particularly appreciate the usage as a fine lodge that could be enjoyed by people of all ages, not just our youth and those fit enough to traverse the hiking trails.

Saint Edwards has long been important to our area and its inhabitants and this plan restores this treasure for generations to come. We also appreciate the developer’s commitment to donating almost 10 acres of adjacent undeveloped waterfront to enhance this fine park.

The alternative which must certainly include at some point, condemnation, demolition and debris removal would be a most tragic loss besides incredibly sad and expensive.

Thank you for your vision and work to save this historically significant treasure.

Dear Sirs,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Please accept this public comment on the proposed re-development of the abandoned Saint Edward Seminary in Kenmore by Kevin Daniels. As a Kirkland resident, I am 100% in favor of this useful and worthwhile proposal. The building is on the National Historic Register but will soon face demolishment due to neglect. Commercial use is the reasonable and sensible solution to save it, and this developer has the deep pockets to make it happen. The alternative is taxpayer-funded demolition and the loss of a historic, beautiful building.

In addition, the public gains 10 acres of prime lakefront shoreline.

Saint Edwards State Park itself is large, beautiful, and underutilized. Even local residents don’t know it’s there, and those who do, often drive by when they realize they need to have a Discover Pass to park for even a short visit. Mr. Daniels’ proposal is an excellent way to bring more public awareness of this state park, and possibly provide additonal parking for short day use by local residents.

I read with interest the article in today's Seattle Times about the proposal for a private developer to rescue and upgrade the old school in exchange for a 10 acre parcel to be deeded to the park.

I am highly in favor of this plan as it appears to be the only way to save this beautiful old building. I took extensive pictures of the inside when we were scouting a wedding venue for our daughter about 15 years ago. We went with another location because we were not able to use the kitchen, off the refectory, as it was supposed to be undergoing renovation. (It doesn't appear that this was ever accomplished.) Even then, the building was beginning to show signs of neglect and I was sad about that.

Although we do not live in that area any longer (we currently reside in Bremerton) I believe that we all have a stake in this, as well as other, old and needy buildings. I think it is short sighted of the "Friends of St Edward's" to fight development on the grounds that they want to preserve the park, while they watch the building go to wrack and ruin because they are not able to get even enough funding to keep it stable, let alone restore it to former glories. It smacks of the "not in my backyard" mentality, and seems selfish rather than enlightened.

We are good friends with (name removed), a gentleman from Guam, who recalls his days there as a student. I have often heard his lament about the state that the building is now in, while remembering how beautiful it once was.

If there is any help that we can offer, please let me know. This building is just too wonderful to let go.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I note from the story in today’s Seattle Times that you are accepting comments from the public regarding the proposal for the historic St. Edward Seminary Building.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I write not only as a former student (I attended St. Edward’s from 1955-1961) and former faculty member (1970-1976), but also as the former Chancellor and Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Seattle, positions I held at the time Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen concluded the sale of the St. Edward’s property to the State of Washington.

I have a long-standing and keen interest in the seminary property, including the venerable main building which is still beloved by tens of thousands of people, mostly Catholic but not all, who came to know and love the seminary over many years, celebrating great and memorable events of the local Church in that special place.

The St. Edward’s Seminary building is unique not only for its handsome Romanesque revival architecture, of which it is the outstanding example in the Pacific Northwest, but also for the role it played over many years in developing leaders who made their mark on the Church of the northwest and even on the entire fabric of society here.

The thought of allowing a beautiful building with such a glorious history to further deteriorate seems highly irresponsible, and even to entertain the thought of demolishing all or part of it is, to my way of thinking, utterly indefensible. The building is a treasure, and deserves to be treated as a treasure. And the fact that there is now a highly promising plan for restoring it makes it all the more obvious that the right thing to do is to move responsibly and resolutely in that direction. It is unlikely that an opportunity like this may ever present itself again.

It is a matter of historical record that Monsignor Theodore M. Ryan, chancellor to Bishop Edward J. O’Dea, Bishop of Seattle, accompanied Bishop O’Dea to that site high above Lake Washington on an autumn day in 1929. It was on that day that Bishop O’Dea made the decision to purchase the property, and to do so with funds left to him in his family’s estate. The fact that Monsignor Ryan was my cousin and a revered member of my family, and the priest who baptized me some ten years later, gives me additional passion for St. Edward’s, its history, its beauty, and everything it stands for.

I know my feelings are widely shared within the Catholic community and beyond. And I know, too, that Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, who himself was a student at St. Edward’s in the 1940s, shares the hope, as he did at the time of the sale, that the building would be preserved for posterity. It was partly this hope of his that prompted him not to sell the property to developers—a strong possibility at the time and a move that would have allowed the archdiocese to realize considerably more from the sale— but, instead, to entrust it to the State of Washington, believing that the State would

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

honor a glorious heritage by preserving the building and keeping the extensive grounds for the perpetual use of the people of this area.

I would be happy to offer further thoughts about this project should you wish.

The proposed renovation of Saint Edward becoming a historic lodge seems to be an excellent plan for a beautiful, historic building.

We live right across the lake from the park. I love historic buildings. I think it is a great idea to renovate the building into a hotel (think of the Davenport Hotel in Spokane). I would love to have it keep its same historic charm. I think that is the main reason people would go stay there. Otherwise it would just be a hotel in the middle of a park with no historic significance.

Michael,

While I have not seen the latest proposal regarding St. Edwards State Park’s seminary building, I would like to state I am generally in favor of the building being used for a commercial purpose. I am a frequent runner on the trails around the park and I admire the building. Just recently I was telling somebody it was too bad that a viable plan hasn’t been offered and approved that would restore the building. Currently, the building is not open to the public so turning it into a lodge/spa would see it become a contributing part of the park and community.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I am spending the summer at Seabeck and will be unable to attend the public meeting tomorrow evening in Kenmore. I would like to express my support for the consideration of accepting the proposal of the Daniels firm to restore this lovely building. I believe it may be the only way this historic building will be preserved for the future. I cannot imagine the public being able to raise the funds necessary to restore the building, without the help of a private partner.

I have lived my entire life in the Greater Seattle area and I love the park. I do not believe that the operation of a lovely hotel complex would destroy the natural beauty of the area. To have eight acres surrounding the building, seems appropriate to me for a lovely public accommodation of this nature.

I sincerely hope that the Parks Commission will extend the September 2015 deadline so that the Daniels company can continue to work on development plans for this great historic and beautiful building. The offer to also purchase ten adjacent waterfront acres and deeding that to the park, is extremely generous and not to be overlooked.

Mr. Hankinson:

I enjoyed the August 24, 2015 Seattle Times article about proposals to renovate the seminary at Saint Edward State Park. My family and I, who live in Redmond, visit Saint Edward State Park perhaps 2-3 times a year. I do not really have any skin in the game nor do I have strong passions about the matter. But nonetheless I thought I would weigh in.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

1. I believe it would be unfortunate if the building is allowed to continue to decay to the point where it becomes unsalvageable and/ or must be demolished.

2. In an ideal world, it would be restored "as is" (i.e., as an old abandoned seminary) and perhaps opened to public tours.

3. Given funding realities that make #2 unlikely, the next best option, in my opinion, would be to open it up to commercial development, perhaps as a hotel and conference center, so long as (a) the appearance of the building's exterior are largely unaltered and (b) the building's interior preserves its original character and (c) steps are taken to avoid parking crunches that may occur and (d) any exterior signage is kept minimalist and in keeping with the aesthetics of a state park.

4. I have heard that the building contains a pool. I have no knowledge about this pool, nor how big it is, or what it is like. But it would be fantastic if any restoration were to include restoration of the pool and the opening of the pool to public use.

Saint Edward State Park is a wonderful urban oasis and provides a great bucolic setting for a number of activities.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I fully support the proposed repurposing of the seminary building into a hotel. I can’t think of any other use that would better suit the structure as well as provide public access to the main areas and to the upper floor via reservations. The loss of this building when a solution is at hand but not taken would be inexcusable. Having enjoyed the site when still an archdiocesan facility and as a park it look forward when the building can once again be an asset and focus along the great lawn. I’m sure many will object for various reasons but objections aren’t valid unless offered with a valid solution. So unless a more viable solution is brought forth let this be the answer. Look forward to seeing this old lady come to life again.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I am totally opposed to any commercial development whatsoever of our beautiful St. Edward Park. The developer was quoted in the Seattle Times as saying his hotel would create an "oasis" in an urban environment; on the contrary, it is an oasis now and putting in a hotel would destroy that. Although it will be sad if the building cannot be saved, the primary purpose of the park is to be a park; the building is secondary. Indeed St. Edward is unique among urban parks I'm familiar with, with its undeveloped woods, trails, and open spaces. In any case, parks are for the people and not for the financial gain of private developers. Please don't destroy this gem of the Washington State Park System.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I read in today's Seattle Times about the proposal to restore the old seminary building in St. Edwards State Park and make it a lodge (like a national park lodge).

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I think this is a wonderful idea! It would save the building, and allow it to be used in a way that is consistent with the park. My husband and I have loved staying at many of the national park lodges over the years. Having this property become a lodge would not have adverse impacts on the park, and would preserve this beautiful building.

We have a prior commitment and are unable to attend the August 25 meeting. Please accept this comment in lieu of our attendance.

If you have a mailing list to keep informed about this project, please add my e-mail address.

I'm writing to support Kevin Daniels and his plan to develop Saint Edward seminary into a hotel/commercial building. In an ideal world with plenty of park and government funding, I would prefer that Saint Edward State Park stay the way it is with no commercial development. But facing reality, I believe that turning the seminary over to commercial use is the best chance to keep a beautiful and historic building from crumbling into ruin. Purchasing 10 acres of undeveloped land and deeding it over to the park also helps protect it in the long run. I hope the parks commission will grant Daniels a one-year extension so he has time to develop his plans. This extension has no impact, and will only improve the chances of saving the seminary.

I'm unable to make it to the public hearing in Kenmore on Aug 25, but wanted to forward my comments.

Hello Mr. Hankinson,

I may not be able to make it to tomorrow's meeting to hear more about the proposed restoration of St. Ed's into a lodge, etc.

I've been following this issue for years, ever since McMenamins put forward their own proposal to restore the building and turn it into a hotel -- and I support the exploration of Kevin Daniels' ideas.

As a resident of the northeast side of Seattle, I've always loved this park - and the building - which is an important part of the park's soul. It would be a horrible shame to lose it: the park without the building would be hollow.

In light of the repairs and upkeep needed, I think it done in a sensitive way, this could be a terrific use of the building. (It could serve as an example of enviro-friendly renovation; it could be bike/hike/nature/history-focused destination, while also perhaps having some public use space (a museum? a nature center? gardens? space for classes?).

I hope to hear more details about it, but right now, this is an encouraging idea. Best of luck moving it forward.

Michael,

In response to the proposed idea to covert the seminary into a hotel, I say YES! It's such a beautiful building and to see it rot from the inside is so sad. Bringing more people into the park is a good thing, not a bad thing!

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I do not live too far away, and the traffic would be minimal, really. So please give this proposal consideration and let's save the seminary!

I live in Lake Forest Park and enjoy St. Edwards regularily. The old seminary is a mess and will be lost without a private public partnership. I strongly support Daniels proposal for a 'park lodge' as long as public still has access to trails and public areas of the 'lodge' similar to national parks. Please dont let self interested neighborhood opposition groups continue to deprive the rest of us of this project.

I was delighted to read about the glimmer of hope for St. Edwards. Several years ago I attended a memorial service there. It was the first time I had seen the facility, and I was stunned--by the beauty, the setting, the architecture.

The proposal by Daniels Real Estate offers a workable solution. Neighbors with a NIMBY attitude could be the death of St. Edwards. Surely good transportation planning can mitigate neighborhood concerns.

St. Edwards is a resource to be enjoyed by the region, state, AND nation.

Subject: Proposal to develop St. Edwards seminary building

Dear Mr. Hankinson:

Although I would prefer that the St. Edwards Seminary building be restored by public funds, I don't think that is feasible any time in the foreseeable future. Therefore, as someone who owns property near St. Edwards State Park, I think the last, best hope to save this building is to allow the development of the lodge and favor the current proposal.

Mr. Hankinson,

I hope the seminary can be saved. I am in favour of any type of private-public partnership that would save this historic building. It's ridiculous that anti-private business voices over the years have killed previous proposals. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would people rather see it destroyed than "developed?" I guess some would. Not me. I grew up down the street from that park and still use it regularly. I was a kid when it was made into a park. I spent many childhood years hiking and swimming at that park and still use it all the time. No one loves it better than I or the friends that grew up with me who feel the same. We lost an opportunity when McMenemans didn't get to have the property, let's not lose our last chance now. It would make a wonderful hotel. Sure it would mean more traffic in the park and it would be busier. But who cares? I'd rather have a busy vibrant park with a lovely historic hotel than a pile of rubble.

Mr., Hankinson,

Thank you so much for considering my plea to save and maintain St. Edwards Park for the citizens enjoyment. Last week alone, we went to a concert at St. Edwards Park, which was attended by about 400 people. There was a plethora of bikers riding their bikes through the trails. In addition, there were many numerous gatherings. An example of this was three groups who had used the occasion to meet their children's classmates and families that were going to be in their Kindergarten class. There were

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

wonderful picnics with people from all over the state, much less all over the world. The participants had paid the $10 fee per day, or had purchased the Discovery Pass as we had for $30.00. My husband and myself took our grandchildren there 10 times since August 1, 2015 for a picnic, walk the trails, and play on the wonderful play areas. The land was respected, and never did I hear anything but rave reviews on how this was the one of the only areas where we can see our tax dollars well spent.

We pay a fee on our taxes for the park, and also purchase the Discovery Pass for the year. The thought of this beautiful land being privately owned by an upscale hotel and spa is appalling!!! When you give away public green space YOU WILL NEVER, EVER GET IT BACK!!!! Can you even imagine if Mr. Trump forcibly insisted on purchasing Central Park...the footprint of that beautiful space would be a vapor to future generations. How incredibly tragic. My husband was Mayor of Kenmore 2004-2005, as well as serving on City Council since Kenmore became a city. His only goals for Kenmore when he ran, (on our own $500.) was to preserve the parks, and make Kenmore a safer place for our children and grandchildren..

As park commissioners, it would certainly be my hope that maintaining public space would be your paramount duty. Please gravely consider the consequences of Goliath coming in and taking away the beautiful St. Edwards Park for the thousands of people who use if regularly for their recreation. It is appalling that our current city council and Mayor Baker seem so eager for the permit fees that they would sell the beautiful parks for 30 pieces of silver. I am putting my faith in you that your dedication to your job as commissioners and in charge of our public lands, to do the right thing and address the absurdity of the city of Kenmore whose only goal is to see the revenues from the permit fees. Shame on them. Thank you so much for considering passionate tax payers who love St. Edwards Park.

I read about the possibility of saving the Seminary with great interest. I would love to see the old building saved and think that a public park and a hotel can co-exist. My only real concerns would be how parking would be handled to manage increased traffic. My daughter is an avid cross country runner who frequently runs at St. Eds. She said that parking can be problematic. Her additional concerns were how hotel guests would feel about staying at a public park and if it would make park go-ers uncomfortable to have a boutique hotel in such a humble setting. From my perspective, as long as these issues were adequately addressed go for it and save the building.

Michael, First off congratulations on the progress with Kevin Daniels at St Edwards. That is an absolutely wonderful vision and the addition to the park on the waterfront sounds perfect. I hope they are able to pull it off.

Hi Michael,

Do you have a sense of when the St. Ed’s item will be on the agenda at the commission’s meeting in Spokane on 9/10? I have a meeting in downtown Spokane that morning which ends at 9:30am. I don’t want to miss the opportunity to provide public comment on the St. Ed’s item!

Thanks,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Chris

CHRIS MOORE | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WASHINGTON TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION STIMSON-GREEN MANSION 1204 MINOR AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.624.9449 (O) 206.930.5067 (C) 206.624.2410 (F) [email protected] www.preservewa.org

Hi (name removed),

The visitation at Saint Edward averages around 615,000 annual visits. In calendar year 2014 the number was approximately 635,000, calendar year 2013 it was approximately 580,000 and in calendar year 2012 it was approximately 637,000

Please let me know if I can further assist you,

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:22:51 -0700

(name removed) has done a remarkable job of staying focused. I did find this on the Parks website: http://www.parks.wa.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?aid=169 and there is a business journal article which indicates this will be a place for the financially comfortable. BTW, the Commissioners are not decided, so what we do does not affront them.

I would like to suggest an organic development of a ruin which would preserve the interesting features of the building and introduce visitors to their surroundings, preserved by the Catholic Church, which I honor, though I am Presbyterian. I have an outstanding example in Taiwan of organic development which had been acknowledged by architects world wide.

Please remember that I honored this heritage of the Catholics in the North West so much that I wrote the narration that nominated the Park to the National Register of Historic Places, both to honor the incredible contributions the graduates made to improve NorthWest lives, and to honor (name removed) mother. I have much to share on this. Later. Also, below, is how I feel; I think how we feel informs our actions and I do not want to blindside you -- I am for organic development, AND FRIENDS does hold sway over Commissioners, so do not give that up:

The idea of organic development includes opening in places, the walls and ceiling to the outdoors, an introduction and invitation to the surrounding park.

Perhaps my humble writing below will better explain what drives me; Citizens have been protecting this park from commercial development for many years; too many folks look at the land and think, empty land, free land. Daniels' idea is not new. My letter to posterity:

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Today our extended family enjoyed Saint Ed, the playground, the toddlers, the little bit older kindergarteners. The phrases we used were "Put down that stick" "If you are going to shoot each other, do not throw wood chips" "Keep your hands to yourself" "Put that child down" "Eat the asparagus" "Let your sister have the leaf" To have that playground is due to (name removed), with a bit of help from me, a handful of others, then a ground swell. The great rolling lawn where we played baseball today, a second grader with a wild connect, and (name removed) running to field the fowls, is there because the Archdiocese collected such a beautiful piece of land for the people, long before it was a state park, which a new developer, like the old, wants to take away from the people. The leaf collected was a simple maple in a simple woods walk, the toddler took up from the ground and was enthralled. Today was wild fun with the bittersweet that this will all be gone when Parks must wrestle with economic hardship when Kevin Daniels with his array of attorneys, puts the screws to Parks. I suggest to long time heroes, one of whom is (name removed), and many others who are of like sentiment, that we ask for mic time August 25. History folks have a point and we (Citizens and I hope Friends) have a point, a different way to honor the history. The cost to stabilize the building has not been wasted. It can be part of the development of an organic honor of the monument. My intention was to not particularly honor the building when I wrote the narration that nominated the park to the National Register of Historic Places, with a tremendous effort, physical, intellectual and emotional on my part, collecting old maps, records, weeks of 60 hour weeks, and with tremendous help from (name removed). The intention of Citizens which I represented, was to honor the heritage of the Catholic Church in the North West. It is amazing to me, a Presbyterian who was told by my parents, "Stay away from Catholic boys," how the Catholic Church contributed to the fabric of this community, raising up everyone, the poorest, whom I thought had simply not worked hard. My heritage was work hard, get an education, do the best you can and life will work out and it did, but I did not realize for some, they don't get all of this and life does not work out and the Catholic Church provided a grace, a beauty, for those who did not work out, that was part of the Northwest history fabric. I still believe in hard work and pushing down your problems and carrying on with a stiff upper lip. Not everyone can do this and this particular religion educated men, likely women -- I don't know what they did with women other than ask them to do laundry, but they offered education to men and now women, and still do. One of the graduates of THIS Seminary became a priest and wrote the first national health care laws, none passed until Obama pushed the essentially same though. The idea of adequate health care for all was presented nearly fifty years ago by one of these thoughtful graduates, whose name I have in a folder somewhere. Not that many who graduated from this Seminary became priests, and two of those whom I know who wanted to be part of the women culture, became outstanding philanthropists. One is still alive. I honor his wisdom and humor. A third, whom I do not know, became the State Treasurer, and I think his views are just weird.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

My point is not a sound bite, nor a clever sticky note, but to request a time before the mic August 25, and I would very much like to speak to organic development of a monument, and I believe if the historical society understands how that can be done, if I can speak and explain it, they will applaud what that means for both allowing a park and honoring its heritage. The two do not need to be exclusive. I love the history; I would never dishonor that. We would not have this incredible park if it were not for the Catholics, saying, yeah, we get it, you are all hard workers and sober, and some got short shrift, insurmountable odds. There is this. If all that history is left to a developer of profit, it will not be about the heroic efforts of the poor, nor about the amazing future of those who just need park to go on. Father Ryan was the headmaster of the Seminary. Will someone please pay to record his words in a professional filming? He gets it and communicates it, AND I sincerely believe that if he is informed on what full development of the building will mean to the Park and the families who visit, and if he is informed on the alternative organic development of a ruin, he will opt for what benefits the people.

I have bccd a few friends whom I invite to add their comments.

All the best; this resistance to a high end spa can be done with love and thoughtfulness that will benefit the public.

Thanks, (name removed), for this update and taking care of the Nonprofit Corporation Annual Report.

I'm finally back from travels and trying to catch up on what's happening at the park. I sure couldn't find much on the parks website http://www.parks.wa.gov/857/Saint-Edward- Planning---Seminary.

In reviewing the Operating Plan draft, it appears that we are almost a year behind in submitting this. Perhaps we should also be talking about the plan for 2016 so it can be submitted by the October 1st due date?

If Scotti's availability requires us to change the September meeting date from the 9th, it would be smart to get that done as soon as possible. That way we can appropriately publicize the change.

Thoughts?

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:15 AM, (name removed) wrote:

The Operation Plan for 2015 has been created, it is very similar to the 2014 plan and will need to go to the first meeting in Sept.2015 to be approved.

The Friends new Officers took care of the change of signatures at the bank much earlier and I am updating the accounting.

I took care of the Nonprofit Corporation Annual Report back in June.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

The Membership Form and Welcome Letter have been updated and continue to be emailed and mailed.

I am in the process of obtaining insurance quotes and will have these available at the first meeting..

The Friends need to ensure we still have access to the room in the gymnasium and have a Park Representative at our meetings while working out a new. mutually compatible schedule for meetings.

Also the Friends officers should plan the agenda for the next meeting now which will be introducing Scotti Stephens and there is mostly business decisions to take care of.

Hello sir,

As a three year resident of Washington state and Kenmore, the State Parks has my 100% backing for saving this wonderful structure. Although many count this building done and out, I envision a grand new life, a resort where residents can visit for meals and weekends away not far from home.

Please save our seminary building from demise should this deal somehow falter.

Hi Michael,

I’m reaching out because I’m hoping to track down some more details regarding the upcoming Saint Edward State Park Seminary Building Meeting. Has an agenda been finalized and if so, where would I find a copy?

Dear Michael,

As a nearby resident, I am so pleased to see the proposal for the Saint Edwards Seminary project!

The project addresses several positive aspects:

-Historic Preservation

-Sustainability (LEED gold)

-Land Conversation

-Economic Development

Daniels Real Estate champions historic preservation and high standards of building and land development. I can't think of a more appropriate developer to work on this project.

Thank you Ann,

• Your email to Becki regarding the Sugar Cane Museum was forwarded to the Commissioners on 8/13/15 at 7:03 a.m. • Your Email to Joe Marshall which you sent us was forwarded to the Commissioners on 8/14/15 at 8:04 a.m.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Thank you for your comments and I look forward to hearing from Daniels Real Estate at the August 25th meeting.

Don, My husband is one of the few real estate attorneys in the area who facilitates large development projects. If you work with him sooner than later, he can see that Parks gets a good deal; otherwise, he believes you will again fall for a nice looking package without substance, not to insult you. He has been working in the field for nearly fifty years. He will do this without charge. I do not mind telling the whole world, this idea of a hotel in the middle of one of the world's best day parks is not nice. However, (name removed), my husband, says that Daniels is not the enemy; he is in this for profit and the enemy is not fully understanding what Parks will get or not get. BTW, I sent the below to the Parks' Commissioners through Becky, but it will not be forwarded by her in the near future. Can you please forward to the Parks' Commissioners today or Monday? I think to tell the other side of the story, time is of the essence. My take is that the building is already a ruin. The nice photo Daniels is using looks to be doctored. Thank you. Organic Development of a Ruin enhances park experience

Organic Development of a Ruin enhances park experience

Actions

8/12/15

To: [email protected], [email protected]

Show this message...

From:

Sent: Wed 8/12/15 3:39 PM

[email protected] ([email protected]); [email protected] To: ([email protected])

Mr. Hankinson, Park Commissioners,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Near the end of last year I sent you the architectural link to the Taiwan Sugar Cane Museum and how it is an example of historic and "organic" architecture, transporting one back in time while establishing a connection to current surroundings, a park, and inviting exploration of the current surroundings. Below are two more links, one from Wikipedia and the other from Trip Advisor with comments of those who toured the museum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Sugar_Museum_(Kaohsiung)

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g297908-d2465899-Reviews-Taiwan_Sugar_Museum- Kaohsiung.html

I plan to tour this museum in early Spring and take lots of photographs. What is interesting is the concept, to transform what is essentially a ruin into an organic connection to the park, open to the public whenever the park is open.

This is not a concept that will make anyone rich or provide lease hold excise tax to the City. It will be carried out through a love of the historical and love of the beautiful surroundings the Archdiocese was able to keep intact and natural, a place of extraordinary beauty that can easily vanish with ordinary development. There are many in this community who can help.

I meant to invite UW architecture students to envision this concept at Saint Ed, but time escaped me. I will yet do that though I believe the architect on staff, Mr. Brown?, can play with the idea as he knows the situation well and must love a park. As an architect, he can likely find more information on this concept in the proper trade magazines.

Please consider this concept. You do not have to go far to find talent. This does not require the immense expense of refurbishing the building to make it safe and habitable and profitable -- any of that kind of development would make the building high impact on the Park.

I hope you have enjoyed your summer; I have very much so -- and the park in the midst of urban ick.

Thank you for your attention.

Thx (name removed) -- it's sinking in -- they want our park land in fee -- that means for whatever they want. This idea violates the public trust and I am sure, applicable law. I recall for sale signs on the McDonald shoreline a few years ago -- I think three million quoted when I called the realtor. State law bans public asset giveaways. The land and buildings they want are worth far more than 3m in fee with nice access and residential zoning -- which I did indeed hear city staff gloating over -- I mean gloating over -- in a previous NUD meeting.

This is reckless and an outrage. Bring it on. We shall fight for our park and win again.

On Aug 13, 2015, at 11:07 PM, " wrote:

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Hi (name removed), Daniels wants to take over the central Park to his profit while leaving the community in the dust, coughing at the abruptness without his taking in community feeling or historical sensitivity. He claims he is famous, a player, a pillar in the community. I hope you can make the meeting in the link below. I think he is a taker, an obfuscator, who will overwhelm the State Parks Staff who will fold and let this beautiful plateau move "forward" to a person who does not care about the regional community and the people's need for a park. Daniels is trading nearly undevelopable, landlocked land (there is no road there and THIS is why it is not developed) for an amazing setting, the main plateau of the park, including the playground and Great Lawn. This is a land grab along the lines of the historical land grabs that took away from communities and left the lands in the ownership of the wealthy; I am especially thinking of the railroad tycoons; he is of that ilk to take, only not that successful.

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:42:47 -0700 Subject: Re: [c4sep] Saint Ed, heavy heart with heavy development Ok, they want to s Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 12, 2015, at 9:59 PM, wrote:

Friends, please note the meeting in Kenmore Tuesday, August 25 on the future of Saint Ed at this link: http://www.citizensforsaintedwardstatepark.org/ Parks in Washington have already become too exclusive with high fees. If you agree with the idea of a few select upper strata enjoying our State Parks, to whom we all pay taxes, please forgo the meeting August 25; we who love a public park do not want you there. David Baker, the mayor of Kenmore, thinks you want the building "saved" at any cost -- your cost; it is already a gone building, a ruin, just an excuse to take over the incredibly valuable land. So, according to David Baker, any developer is allowed to take the land in order to save a ruin. Do you get it? The building is a ruin and in order to gain lease hold excise tax, the City is promoting development of a ruin. David Baker takes fancy trips on whose behalf? Industry. He rubbing elbows with the people who seem to impress him more than us, has increased the intensity of industry at Kenmore's shores and is now robbing us of the most wonderful egalitarian idea of a park. PLEASE vote him down this fall for the honest guy who will share with us what is actually on the agenda, that is vote for (name removed). Thank you, with all my heart.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am most interested into the footprint of land that Daniels seeks to acquire. Can you tell me what the footprint of land would look like?

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Have appraisals been done on the property that Daniels hopes to acquire and the property that Daniels hopes to trade for the property? May I see them if they have been done?

Once Daniels acquires the property in “fee” it would seem the park commissioners would have lost control over the building and the surrounding grounds? How would this work?

What if Daniel cannot develop the building in a manner that is in harmony with a passive state park?

Would the city of Kenmore manage the zoning and permitting of the property after this trade?

Hi Micheal,

This sounds like a fantastic win-win opportunity. In addition to the comment “Staff has reviewed the concept and believes it is realistic, has the potential to be a successful project, and could greatly enhance the visitor experience of the park. “

I would add it also has the potential to enhance the park owners/stakeholders (Washington State taxpayers) investment and value.

Please continue to keep us in the loop.

I think Daniels Real Estate plan to revamp the seminary is a great deal. The building is getting worse and worse and if it not repaired will soon need to be torn down. That would be a great loss for Kenmore. We have an obligation to maintain our historic sites for our future. This is a good first step. I live in Kenmore so I am aware of the grandeur and beauty of the seminary and surrounding grounds. I vote for Daniels Real Estate proposal and I am anxious to see the detailed plan for implementation.

I agree with the Seattle Time article on Securing a vibrant future for Saint Edward. I am a senior citizen and a resident of Kenmore Washington. Since Kenmore does not have the 14 million it would need to rehabilitate the Seminary, private ownership is necessary. I want to be proud of my city of Kenmore. It saddens me to see that beautiful building slowly deteriorating. while a few citizens object to private ownership. They do not have the funds or plans of their own to save the building. Daniels Real Estate has a past record of restoring historic buildings. It would be to their advantage to be good neighbors to the citizens of Kenmore and preserve the beauty of the surroundings as well. I vote to give Daniels Real Estate a year to refine its proposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Daniels Development proposal to restore and develop the Seminary building as well as the proposed land swap. As proud Kenmore residents, we are delighted to submit our enthusiastic support to move this proposal forward. We are Kenmore residents residing at (address removed) and frequent users of the park and trails.

This proposal is a rare opportunity to create an “everybody wins” scenario. Daniels and his group have a strong and successful track record of big restoration projects in Seattle. We believe in their commitment to transform the crumbling site into something special that enhances our community. We understand that WA State Parks needs private investment to save and restore the building and we further believe that the boutique hotel idea will be a positive use for the building, something that Kenmore residents can be proud of and take advantage of.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

We are disappointed by the fence line neighbors who don’t support the proposal; they do not represent the Kenmore community at large. St. Edwards has state significance and the decision to move forward should not be squashed by a vocal minority. The “Save St. Edwards” t-shirts are perplexing as we believe that is what this proposal paves the way for.

We urge the Parks Commission to move forward with the Daniels Development proposal. There is a significant amount of misinformation being shared on social media and I urge State Parks to be proactive in providing the facts. We understand that much is yet to be studied and decided upon but we strongly support moving this phase of the proposal forward and look forward to staying engaged in the process.

Dear Commissioners,

The proposed swap of 8 acres surrounding the seminary building for 10 very difficult to develop acres on Lake Washington will not pass a financial cocktail napkin test. This swap will not pass the National Park Service, Land Water Conservation Fund requirements for replacement property of equal value. The county values the swap property at $3,006,000. (See copy of county record below) Admittedly these are not always true market values but are close enough for a rough calculation. The seminary property will have a hotel zoning for this transaction to proceed. I am guessing the park property will be valued at $1- $3 million per acre or $8 to $24 million. These values are not even close. State Representative Gerry Pollet cautioned the audience that the two properties are not likely to be of comparable value, at the public meeting, in Kenmore and the Daniels’ proposal would not succeed because of this.

A one year extension of the search for a private savior of this building will be an expensive waste of Park Staff resources and the Commissioners time. This proposal by Daniels should be announced dead on arrival because of insurmountable LWCF requirements. Last year produced nothing and this proposal is not close to viable. There is no good reason to extend the time frame and spend another $100,000 maintaining this building, through the fall of 2016.

If members of the Commission need better evidence that the Daniels’ proposal is not even close, inexpensive appraisals of both properties can be ordered. Reasonable appraisals should be available for about a thousand dollars. MIA appraisals could be ordered but would likely be overkill but still worth the savings of getting a handle on values early. The seminary property should be appraised as if it has a hotel zoning because the project will not go through without this zoning in hand or the promise of this zoning by the city of Kenmore. The commission could delay granting a 1 year extension of the search for a savior until basic appraisals have been performed. With appraisals in hand, it should then be very clear the Daniels’ proposal is going to fail and worth no more investment of staff time and other department resources. Appraisals will give the Commission confidence if the decision is to stop the process. This proposal is as doomed as starting a climb of Mount Everest in tennis shoes and a T-shirt.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

Dear Commissioners,

Saving the building by permitting a 100 room hotel and spa will cause frequent saturation of this busy park. This park often operates at maximum capacity, parking lots are full. How are future park commissions going to accommodate increasing visitor counts? The Park Commission in the foreseeable future will have to address a shortage of parking and probably other facilities like restrooms.

St. Edward State Park is often out of parking on busy summer days and nights. Last summer the park on several occasions had to use the grounds adjacent to the seminary and the soccer field, for automobile parking. There is very little room left to accommodate the increasing demand for parking and facilities. The land adjacent to the seminary is most of the last inexpensive to develop land in the park.

Please look at this unedited aerial photo. Look closely and you can see how the entire complex except the grass area north and west of the seminary building has been used for parking and event stages, booths and displays. This photo came from Google Earth.

Bastyr

This proposal will be very expensive for the Parks department. The land that is proposed for a swap while not without charms is not suitable for parking or park facilities. The day will soon come that a Park Commission is confronted with the expense of building a multi-story parking structure or clearing forest and filling wetlands to build surface lots and facilities if it goes through with the swap. A multistory parking facility feels out of place in a passive wild park. Cutting trees and filling wetlands for parking also feels very wrong. It is all much more expensive to build multistory parking or clear forest and fill wetland than developing the land around the seminary building. If you let Daniels have it a future Commission will not be able to fall back on this ground. The future Commission will have the

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

remote impractical to develop real estate Daniels is offering. Losing this land for future park needs is a bad idea. The swap land will not provide any future parking or facility needs. The park has lots of waterfront and forest what it does not have is developable ground.

This park is not big enough to sensibly allow for the reclamation of this large building as a viable commercial operation and provide for future park facilities. This park cannot afford the loss of core developable real estate.

Please deny the 1 year extension of an investigation of a private/public venture to save the building. There are no saviors who can save the building without adversely impacting the park. This building is not worth it.

Dear Commissioners,

We have heard a lot about the legacy of the architects and the many good works they have built over the years. I would argue this building is not a project that is worthy of their reputation. This seminary is an imposing but unremarkable building. It is the dominant building in the area, this does not make it great architecture. Nobody of international stature and great public interest attended this seminary. It is not the institution that educated Bill Clinton or housed Bob Dylan. It is a utilitarian building, built to house and educate young men. It was not meant to be an architectural monument. The Catholic monuments are built for the public in busy locations, not as warehouses for young men in what was then a remote location. There is little historical or architectural reason to keep the building.

This building has some interesting features in the northern 1/3 on the west facing side but is otherwise generally without merit. Please look at these unedited photos.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

West Side Formal Entrance. The first floor façade is rather pleasant with some interesting features around the front door and some engraved panels around the dining hall to the far left which show up poorly in this photo. The dormitories on the south 2/3 are tedious. The upper bell tower is an interesting feature, the large base is not.

East side south 2/3 and south end fire escapes. An unremarkable if not an unattractive view of the dormitories and classrooms and the south end fire escape.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

East side north portion not seen in the previous east photo because of the pool building on the left.

The dormitories continue and connect to the eastern appendage that holds the ranger housing which is above the kitchen and a nice doorway. The attractive dining hall is comparatively very small. The bell tower is also visible and attractive.

North side….

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

On the right side of the photo is the dining hall, 3 big windows and above another large room with 6 windows. Under the 6 upper windows are some interesting brown leafy panels. Otherwise the north end view is very unattractive with the ranger housing and other utilitarian building on the left side (east) dominating the view.

I have been in the dining hall on the first floor and while not common in this part of the city, is not an interesting room. I was truly surprised at how spare the room is for all of the fuss about the history and how great the building is.

This building is an obsolete; warn out building needing many millions of dollars of investment, in a now inappropriate location. Would the park commission allow a new seminary to be built on these grounds? I am sure it would not. It will cost about as much to restore this building as build a new one. For comparatively little money the building can be stripped, salvaged and razed; or closed and abandoned. A small monument could be left on the sight in commemoration of the young men and priests who served on the grounds.

This is no Sistine Chapel. I do not see how this building rates all of this architectural interest. It is a big building. It is an imposing building. Perhaps it is the real emotional connection the building has in the men who attended the seminary and sometimes their families. These men and their contemporary families should not be allowed to drive this conversation of building salvation. These sincere folks will all be dead in the next 40 or 50 years and the community connection and emotion to the building will die with them. A decision to allow the redevelopment of the building will be unleashing a cancer in the park for centuries.

Please allow the building to be closed and the park to be a park. The park should not become a hotel/spa grand lodge in a resurrected brick warehouse where young men lived and were educated. In the end this building is not great and should not become the dominant feature of this park. “The Emperor has no clothes”, this is not a great building.

Dear Commissioners and Park Planners,

I experienced the beauty of this building in 1939 when my brother, (name removed), attended St. Edwards Seminary during his high school years. It would break my heart to see this building go to ruin. In my 89 years of life, I have seen so many buildings get demolished for lack of care. Having seen what Mr. Daniels/Nitze Stagen has done with the Union Station, the Sears building and his efforts with saving the Methodist Church building; I am confident that he intends to restore St. Edwards to its former grandeur. Since it is a Washington State treasure, I like his idea of converting it to a “Park Lodge” because it can be accessed by many; instead of being converted into a community center which benefits only the local community residents. I am delighted that Mr. Daniels is interested in saving this stunning building for future generations to enjoy.

Therefore, I support the one year deadline extension, allowing Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to review restoration proposals for the Saint Edwards Seminary buildings.

Dear Commissioners: You are empowered to make serious decisions about the vision and the future of St. Edward State Park.

If you could spend time at the park, you would feel the power of its serenity as a "passive" park where it is quiet, offering fresh air, with nature supplying the only "noise": birdsong and wind in the trees, sights of mature trees and plants, and the changing seasons. Having a place to go to recover a

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

sense of serenity is most important. A friend from Wisconsin was taken all over Seattle and Portland. Her favorite place: sitting on the Great Lawn while I walked down to the lake.

I just can't envision that continuing with the commercial development of the proposed Daniels hotel/spa. A hotel is 24/7 disturbance, with cars, toxic odors, and the inevitable noises of restaurant deliveries, banging doors, loud, (drunk?) people etc. Additional parking is a further intrusion.

I believe this park was created to be "passive" and not able to be destroyed by commercialism. I take offense that you are demanding that trees make money for the State Parks. There are important reasons for Keeping St. Edward as a Park.

Others are writing to you with more technical information, such as (name removed), and I hope you will read their letters with an open mind.

Good morning,

I have been following the St. Edwards planning. Although I was unable to attend the meeting in person, I have read many comments and heard about the discussion. I would like to add my own comments for consideration.

I fully support the use of the seminary building, in an open concept where the park users would not be restricted from the grounds surrounding the hotel. Even better if they are welcomed into the lobby, any restaurant or gift shop. What gives me pause is the loss of land. Even though it is supposed to be open to patrons, how long will that last? What guarantees that it will be there for my grandkids? One concept that was mentioned was a 99-year lease in lieu of a full land exchange. I fully support this. If the hotel should ever cease to run, we should not lose the park land. If we deed the land, there is no guarantee what will happen with it in the future.

Use it, but lets not lose it.

Michael,

This week I attended the meeting at the North Shore Utility District building in Kenmore to hear details and public comments about the proposed restoration of the Seminary building at St. Edward state park. I support the proposal from Daniels Real Estate. If they require an extension to the deadline for rehabilitation then I support the extension so that they can complete their due diligence in exploring this project.

Thanks,

WE SHOULD SAVE ANYTHING THAT HAS HISTORY OF SEATTLE, AND I AM SURE OUR PEOPLE ROAMING THAT LAND AT ONE TIME. WE ARE STILL HERE. DUWAMISH TRIBE. REMEMBER WE GAVE UP 54 THOUSAND OF LAND WHICH TAKES IN THAT PART TOO.

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I very much support the extension of a deadline for rehabilitation proposals for Saint Edwards Seminary.

Now that there is a serious proposal to rehabilitate this beautiful building as a beautiful grand hotel, it is well worth the time needed to examine this idea.

My family has enjoyed Saint Edwards Park for many years. The children’s innovative play area was a favorite spot when our grandchildren were younger. Now we all enjoy going there several times a year to picnic on the expansive grounds.

It has been sad to see the beautiful main building just stand there, unused and deteriorating. It still is very impressive from the outside, but I have seen photos of the interior that needs so much work.

To have the chance for the rebirth of this building is wonderful! I have heard that there are a group of people that oppose any for-profit use of this building. They are the ultimate NIMBY- ers. This is probably the last viable chance for this stately historic building. The state certainly can’t afford to renovate it. Why not allow it to be renovated and then opened again for another use? I supported this idea when a proposal similar to this was made as few years ago, only to be defeated by most likely these same people.

The alternative to this proposal is probably tearing down this beautiful building. That would be the real crime. The rehabilitated structure wouldn’t be a grand lodge with a grand fireplace, but it would be a grand hotel with its own historic beauty. It doesn’t bother me at all that this hotel would be for-profit. This can be worked out within the state parks structure.

I sincerely hope that the Commission will vote to extend this deadline and give this “grand old lady” another chance at life.

To: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

The Skandia Folkdance Society supports the proposal before Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to Extend the Deadline for Rehabilitation Proposals to allow review of options for beneficial uses of the seminary building at Saint Edward State Park.

Skandia is the owner of the 1600 square foot performance stage that is erected in the Great Lawn of Saint Edward State Park every summer. Other organizations in addition Skandia use the stage every summer in the park for their festivals, concerts and events including the summer concert series sponsored by the City of Kenmore. More than 10,000 people benefit from using Skandia’s stage at Saint Edward State Park every summer.

For the past 14 years, Skandia has hosted a traditional Swedish Midsommarfest on the last weekend of June at Saint Edward State Park. Midsommarfest is a huge celebration throughout Sweden, and Norway

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

celebrating the summer solstice. This was Skandia's 57th annual Midsommarfest in the Seattle area. Typically, more than 1500 people come to Skandia's festival for the traditional music and dance performances, traditional costume, the Nordic themed vendor booths, the Nordic food court, and especially the centerpiece of all traditional Swedish midsommar celebrations -- the raising of the majstång, the 35' flower garlanded midsommar pole you will find still today erected in every town and village throughout Sweden.

Skandia does not charge admission to attend our annual Midsommarfest in the Park. It is free to the public. We advertise our event widely and invite all to come and enjoy our family-friendly event. The Skandia Folkdance Society spends more than $8,000 every year to put on this public event with almost half of the money going to Washington State Parks. Skandia very much appreciates being able to utilize Saint Edward State Park for our annual festival and we look forward to using it for years to come.

Skandia's biggest concern with the future of the building is the winter storage of our stage and Midsommarfest materials. We just finished taking down our summer stage with the assistance of the City of Kenmore. Skandia has been allowed to store the materials for our summer stage inside one of the unused classrooms of the seminary building through the winter months. Skandia hopes there might be some opportunity to store the stage somewhere within Saint Edward State Park so that we might continue to celebrate our family-friendly cultural festival where the public is invited to discover a fabulous state park.

Additionally, I want to personally thank the chair and members of the Parks Commission for their attendance of the recent public meeting in Kenmore. Your dedication to a public process is so very much appreciated. Thank you.

Sincere regards,

Since our family is routinely hiking at the park, we do not feel turning the seminary into a hotel would benefit the community in the long run. I would doubt the hotel would allow the public to roam the territory as freely as it does now, thereby ruining a great opportunity for kids and family to enjoy the park. I do not support the proposal nor plan to turn the seminary into a hotel. St Edward State Park is a valuable resource for public access and getting people into the forest.

This resource and its access cannot be compromised by the proposal for the seminary restoration - the two must work together and keep public access to the park. Public access, parking and functions must continue for the park.

I see nothing about the current Daniels proposal - so what is there for comment? Please post the details of the proposal so the public can review and comment - before and after the planned public meeting on August 26, 2015.

Please make the information available to the public - and post signs for the upcoming meeting so the using public will know about the potential project.

Any project must accommodate the current uses for the park and all the activities in play here. The

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 park is an amazing resource for all the nearby communities. Dear Sir or Madam,

We as a family love coming to visit Saint Edward State Park. We are deeply saddened and upset about the possibility of losing the beautiful architecture and surroundings areas to a private developer who may turn it into a hotel or a resort. We are not Catholics but as Muslims we respect the heritage of this seminary and the vision of the original founders. It would go against their principals to have the buildings used for profit. Please use these buildings to help the poor, the homeless or for educational purposes. Choose the higher road! Please do not allow the private developer, Kevin Daniels, to purchase the building and surround acreage at the park. I agree with others that the original funding to purchase the park never intended for a private developer to come in a purchase the very center of the park. This will drastically change the use of the park. The building should come down before you allow a private entity to own a portion of a state park. That just isn't right.

Do the right thing - vote NO on allowing this to happen. It's sad to see a beautiful building falling apart. If too much time passes, it won't be an enjoyment for anyone. I hope we can encourage a win-win for the prospective developer and the Kenmore community at large. There was no mention of plans for the pool. A pool is much needed for this area, and it would be great to see that renovated as well, and with the allowance for community use. As a Kenmore resident since 1997, I am in favor of Daniels Real Estate's plan to renovate and develop St. Edward Seminary. The building's beauty is decaying, and without intervention it will crumble away. There are guidelines and restrictions already in place for the surrounding park, and as long as those guidelines are properly enforced the proposed project is highly welcomed.

I have been to Yellowstone National Park's beautiful lodges and hotels. I have been to Mount Rainier's gorgeous lodge. I would be proud to have that type of restoration and transformation applied to the St. Edward Seminary building.

As a resident, I am not overly concerned about the additional traffic that may increase. Housing development in recent years and in process now have already increased traffic volumes. The city of Kenmore should be planning proactively for the increase in population. Having a destination like St. Edward Seminary will not dramatically increase traffic volumes.

Please consider my comment in your decision on the St. Edward Seminary proposal. I write as a former Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, a trustee of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a partner at Artifacts, Inc., an architectural consulting firm in Tacoma that has worked on projects for Daniels Real Estate. I urge the Washington State Parks Commission to continue negotiations on a partnership to save the St. Edwards Seminary.

State Parks is the steward of the largest collection of historic properties in the State of Washington. Through difficult budget times it has kept the hope of a thoughtful renovation alive at St. Edwards. Throughout the country historic properties are being re-purposed. This is true for countless public buildings, whether once post offices or schools or park structures. Currently, for example, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is negotiating a final lease with a commercial developer for the re-use of the historic Cooper-Molera adobe in Monterey â€“ located in a California State Park. This building was once a museum with minimal visitation. The new use will attract many more people to the building to

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 learn about its history and will allow for long-defrayed renovation and appropriate new construction. This is the future of historic preservation, and the future of St. Edwards as no public or non-profit funding alone is capable of financing a project of this magnitude.

State Parks has a responsibility to all the citizens of the State of Washington to manage both recreational opportunities and its historic properties. With the proposed project both of those purposes are well-served. The people of the State receive not only a beautifully renovated historic building with ample public access, but also additional lakefront acreage at this beloved park. It is a responsible and advantageous proposal. Allowing this historic site to fall into ruin in the face of a plausible plan to save it sets a terrible precedent for State Parks. An imaginative and sensitive re-use, however, can benefit all.

Since I won't be able to attend the meeting tonight I wanted to lend my thoughts of support for this project. I feel as if only opposition will attend and the many people I've spoken with about this project think it's a win/win for the community. I live directly across the street from St. Edwards and use the trails and park on a weekly basis. It's a travesty that the building sits there unused and preserving it would be wonderful. I'd love to see most of the park remain if at all possible. Maybe open the pool to the public? The development money going to road improvement will also be very beneficial for the community.

Thank you! I urge you to enhance the community involvement in this important project by building or supporting a social networking site, in which the community can easily discuss both with you and among ourselves the various aspects of this project.

One approach would be a facebook page but there are others.

Last night's meeting was excellent and a good start, but technology will greatly widen the power of community involvement and substantively improve the end result, as well as the public buy-in. Please consider Marc Kushner's TED talk on the subject (specifically about architecture but also applying to parks):https://www.ted.com/talks/marc_kushner_why_the_buildings_of_the_future_will_be_shaped_ by_you

I of course would participate fully in such a community, and I would try to draw in my fellow St. Ed's alumni. This project is a really great opportunity and public participation can make it even better.

(P.S. I appreciate the courage of opening the project to public participation early on; it means everything is somewhat vague which is annoying but also that everyone can participate early on, which is worth the annoyance. Well done!) a) May I receive a pdf copy of the public meeting handout (power point)? b) I'd like to express to the comission, my interest in providing Daniels Real Estate the year extension for developing a plan proposal for repurposing the Seminary, Gym, and Swimming Pool Buildings. c) I would also like to see an option for a 99 year lease in the Seminaryplan/proposal, if that does not negatively impact DRE's ability to secure financing. Yes, let's have the seminary restored by developers!!!!

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

I strongly support the Daniels Real Estate proposal, although I would recommend that it be for a 99 year lease. It was a real tragedy that the McMenamins proposal fell through, considering their strong record of working with historical buildings and working closely with the public. Daniels Real Estate is the next best choice to keep this wonderful and historical building open and available to the public while protecting the surrounding park and woodlands. I'm a fourth generation Washingtonian and I 'd love to see St. Edwards seminary restored to the beauty and community treasure that my parents and grandparents described. My Dad passed away six years ago. We hiked the trails with him.but were never able to experience the building as he had growing up. To let it rot and crumble when someone with a strong track record of success in restoration would like to restore it doesn't make sense economically or socially. I'm looking forward to staying at the hotel and raising a glass to those that came before us and those that are here today who have the vision and talent to restore it for future generations.

Thank you, No land swap! This property must remain in perpetuity the property of the State of Washington. Lease it, if you must, but what Daniels is proposing is a rip off of the taxpayers in this state. Inferior landslide zone, unbuildable, for property of much higher value. I'd rather see a bare patch in the ground than have it transferred into private hands. The Seattle Times piece today praising this proposed deal looks like a paid advertisement masquerading as an editorial.

We/you are being led down the garden path. No to this deal! I would like to go on record as being in favor of the Saint Edward Seminary Building preservation project being proposed by Daniels Real Estate. It is a rare building given it's location & history to let further deteriorate. The project is the perfect solution for the building and the site. I urge the state to save the building and allow it to become a restoration project the state can be proud of and can be enjoyed by all citizens. It is not often a building like this is set on open space that is currently park land and would continue to be. Open space, especially water front, is dwindling quickly and it would be a shame to not go forward with this project. I support the State Park Commission Board to allow the extension to review all proposals in regards to restoring Saint Edwards Seminary Buildings located in Saint Edwards State Park. This includes the proposal submitted by Kevin Daniels. I like the idea of a Park Lodge where visitors can stay the night like they do in other state and national parks. (Fort Warden, Paradise, etc.)

However, I would like to see something offered for families of all income levels, from concession and a casual dining establishment for day users, to the fancier gourmet dining and spa for high income users looking to get away from it all. I feel a broad appeal to those of any income level will generate the revenue required to make this pencil financially.

The hotel's unique location would attract out of town visitors attending weddings, family reunions, business/back to nature retreats. I like the idea of afternoon high tea, educational seminars/luncheon/ in which the local public could attend.

The one thing that shouldn't happen is to let this architectural and historic treasure decay because of the efforts of a very vocal activist group that want to see the building crumble, in the hopes to gain more green space for their personal use or to create outdoor ball fields for their organized league events. Instead, they should look to their local community parks for their league playfields, as this type of use does not fall within the state parks mission statement.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

The State Park Commission should continue working with Daniels Developers to add the McDonald Property to the park and to rehabilitate the seminary. A boutique hotel with restaurants is an ideal use of this wonderful structure.

My family and I regularly use the park for hiking and also pass by in our kayak. The outdoor space is a treasure on the developed shores of Lake Washington. What is best about the development plan is that it will only had to pleasure of the park. More land will be permanently protected while no new structures need be built.

This is a win-win-win for all parties involved. I support the Parks staff's recommendation to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to approve a one-year extension of the time allowed for submittal of proposals for the rehabilitation of the old Saint Edward park seminary building to allow Daniels Real Estate to further develop its land exchange/rehabilitation proposal.

At a recent public meeting in Kenmore, Daniels Real Estate presented a very viable proposal for rehabilitation of the building and the majority of those in attendance expressed great interest and excitement about the quality of the plan and the developer.

Please grant a one-year extension for the submittal of proposals. Hello. Though there are naysayers to this project, it seems to me to be a no-brainer! Everything that the Kevin Daniels group does is beautiful and well done. He is putting the money into it that the Parks cannot afford and this can only be helpful to the Park. St. Edwards is a landmark with amazing architecture, a long history, and should not be torn down or allowed to fall apart. I am an older person who sees building all over and lament the traffic that ensues, but that is the price we pay to move forward in caring for this earth and its people. I may not like all the building, but as I said at the beginning, something done well is so much better than not done at all. Please let this project be approved. I support the sale of St. Edwards Seminary in Kenmore to Daniels real estate to save this property and use if for a commercial purpose.

However, the community does not want this property eventually turned into some form of housing. My hope is that you will negotiate an outcome that will prevent that should commercial effort fail - ensure that the Washington State or the National Parks system have the first right to purchase the property outlined in the agreement. i would like to support the Daniels' Real Estate plan to rehabilitate the Seminary building at St. Edward's park. As a site already on the National Register and one of exceptional historical architectural value, I'm asking for acceptance of the plan for rehabilitation. As a neighbor of the Park, living in the Holmes Point community immediately to the South my wife and I highly value the Park's natural amenities and ecosystem services provided. I write to state that I support in principle but subject to review of detailed plans the Daniels Real estate proposal for St Edward Park. As an architect and environmental planner I recognize that the State clearly faces a dilemma with respect to maintaining the Seminary buildings within the Park. Furthermore, the scale and configuration of these buildings do not seem to lend themselves to public use even if the State can locate funds for necessary maintenance. The Daniels' preliminary proposal therefore, appears to address this dilemma, with the following questions raised:

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

- I assume the proposal will provide assurances that these amenities and services will not be jeopardized.

- I also assume that the land swap proposed, that is the main Seminary structures and their immediate surroundings traded by the State in exchange for the McDonald tract, will be completed as shown on the present proposal map.

- Of obvious concern with any such commercial development proposal will be prospective traffic and noise impacts. Juanita Drive is already a busy arterial, particularly during rush hours. How much additional traffic will be generated by a hotel and presumably one or more restaurants associated with it? What if any mitigation for traffic impacts will be provided. The City of Kenmore recently completed an improvement to Juanita Drive but will it be enough to address additional traffic?

- Furthermore, how will parking be handled on site? During the summer, parking lots are already filled by Park visitors; where will hotel/restaurant guest parking be located? Will this entail paving of open space?

- Additionally, how much noise noise will result from additional traffic and from the operation of a hotel and restaurants? The Park has occasionally hosted concerts and they are clearly audible in the evening from our home on Holmes Point. An occasional concert is acceptable but regular noise from outdoor events, weddings, and other gatherings etc. is not at all tolerable. Strict noise covenants should be attached to any development agreement.

I look forward to reviewing the forthcoming decision by the Commissioners and will be following subsequent developments with interest.

Dear State Parks Commissioners,

It has been said that the envisioned enterprise would be a â€œlodge,â€ similar to the great lodges built in some of the destination National Parks, such as Yellowstone, Mt. Rainier, and Olympic National Parks. However, the ownership of the lodges at these parks is retained by the National Park Service, and concessionaires are hired to run them in accordance with the values of the National Park Service. Selling the St. Edward seminary building and property, a piece of prime real estate, outright to a private firm would throw the future of the rest of the park into uncertainty, and eliminate the ability of the state to manage the entirety of the park as a continuous whole. Should the business, the building, and/or the property be mismanaged or sold again to some other entity, the incalculable value of the rest of the park would potentially be jeopardized and the general public would sustain an immeasurable loss.

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011

As the population of the Seattle metropolitan area grows, its citizens flock to the peaceful, restorative natural environment afforded by St. Edward Park to picnic, play cricket, bicycle, hike in the woods, attend Wilderness Camp, and swim in Lake Washington from an undeveloped shoreline.

With that in mind, I believe that the seminary building, if it were restored, should be used for the public, as a museum and/or for educational purposes, to complement and enhance the publicâ€™s understanding of the natural and wild sections of the park. Most important, the ownership of the building and the land it occupies should be retained by the state of Washington. The state should not lose sight of what is most valuable about St. Edward State Park: its natural environment and the ability of the general public to freely enjoy it.

I urge you to reject the proposal.

September 1, 2015

Dear State Parks Commissioners,

I am a Washington State resident, ecologist, and frequent visitor to St. Edward State Park, and I am writing to request that you deny the proposed sale of St. Edward State Park property to a private developer. Such a transaction would be contrary to the interest of the citizenry of the State of Washington, for whom the State Parks were established, and a violation of the stated purpose of State Parks.

The mission and vision statements of the State Parks of Washington both state that State Parks and the resources they encompass are for â€œall Washingtoniansâ€ to enjoy. The bare fact that the proposal would sell off a piece of what is currently one of the most popular State Parks in Washington is inconsistent with this principle. That the development proposed is an exclusive hotel and spa, which would undoubtedly be patronized by a small number of wealthy tourists, adds to the clear disconnect between Parks mission and the proposal.

The proposed acquisition by the State of a small amount of undeveloped property in exchange for selling the Seminary site does not significantly reduce these objections. The property in question is not likely to be developed, and in any event, its acquisition would not produce benefits commensurate with the losses that would result from the development.

The most valuable aspect of Saint Edward Park is its natural environment: the largely intact and maturing Pacific Northwest Forest and forested lakeshore. These amenities are unparalleled in the Seattle metropolitan area, and are recognized in the scientific and land management literature.1 The park offers the closest opportunity to experience a native Northwest forest for a large portion of the Washington state publicâ€”over a million people are within a very short drive of the park. These natural environments also enhance the quality of the picnic areas, play fields, and play areas. The fact that this park is so heavily visitedâ€”even though the Seminary building is not open to the publicâ€”speaks to what is truly valuable about this park. It is not the building, but rather the natural environment.

It is hard to imagine any scenario in which the development and operation of a hotel do not degrade natural systems or the human enjoyment of those systems. Increased traffic, parking problems, noise

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 pollution, air pollution, water pollution and flow impacts, and diverse wildlife impacts are all likely. It is also likely there would be curtailment of current social activities in the area of the Seminary building: picnicking, biking and community events.

The proposed sale also opens the door for a host of management problems by creating what is essentially an inholding in the park. The potential for unforeseen future conflicts between the private and public interests seems large.

If the St. Edward Seminary is to be preserved, it should be preserved for use by â€œall Washingtonians,â€ for example, by government or philanthropic funding, and managed in a manner that would not negatively affect the natural environment of the park. If those avenues for protection are not available, State Parks should adopt as its first priority the protection of the most valuable amenities of the park and avoid actions that would compromise those amenities, such as the proposed development.

It would be a terrible mistake to turn over this property located deep within St. Edward State Park to a private developer. There are many reasons to oppose the proposed development. I urge you to reject the proposal.

Please put an end to the contentious debate over the sale of St Edward Park. Do not extend the deadline. It is very stressful for users of the park to have a cloud of suspicion and distrust over the park. This makes it difficult to enjoy the park and alienates the very people who would like to use and volunteer to help take care of the park. It is also a distraction for the rangers, who seem to have forgotten their jobs of maintaining the safety of the trails. I encourage the Commission to approve a one year extension for proposals for the rehabilitation of the Saint Edward Seminary. Additionally, I encourage you to approve the proposal presented by Daniels Real Estate. The proposed use would be compatible with our beautiful Saint Edward State Park AND would expand the public shoreline with the addition of the undeveloped McDonald property.

Allowing the Saint Edward Seminary structure to be a victim of â€œdemolition by neglectâ€ is unconscionable. Two earlier plans to rehabilitate the building were crushed because of a vocal minority. That said, perhaps that was fortunate for all of us hoping for the â€œrightâ€ project. I believe this is the right project and Daniels Real Estate is the right developer. I know of no developer who takes historic preservation more seriously than Kevin Daniels.

I live within walking distance of Saint Edward Park. My family and I have used and loved the park and (seminary) for years. Weâ€™ve used it in more ways than I can count - swimming, biking, running, concerts, parties, hikes, school projects, walking the dog, watching the sun set, and more. A lodge would be a fabulous addition to our very special place.

I hope the Commission will gather their courage and stand up to the vocal minority of naysayers and NIMBYs. Approve the extension and make this happen!

Please retain the public ownership, public use option for St. Edwards and reject the illegal Daniels swap. St. Edward's primary value is natural and open space, not the built environment. If some portion of the buildings must be preserved, the north wing and tower being the most efficient configuration, the ownership and use must remain public and non-profit. Please consider the many

Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 outstanding examples of non-profit, community-based park uses -- Centrum at Fort Worden, Daybreak Star at Discovery Park, El Centro de La Raza and Youngstown Cultural Arts in Seattle among others. The building must serve education, the arts, the environment, the needy -- not wealthy private developers and their investors.

I had thought Washington Parks would present an objective viewpoint. To my great dismay staff was ruthlessly biased in promoting the Daniels swap. Expert manipulation resulted in a meaningless public meeting, in the dead of summer, no time to get the word out or organize, unreasonable deadlines for response and of course the Labor Day break before a meeting on St. Edward's in Spokane. Staff at the Kenmore meeting presented zero alternatives to Daniels, except once at the beginning, to suggest the only alternative was letting the buildings crumble, which was characterized as deplorable. There was no hint of non-profit, public ownership, partial preservation of the building, or complete re-earthing. Questions as to Daniels were immediately and vigorously resolved by parks staff in Daniels' favor. I am appalled -- the more so because RCW 179.05.175 requires, before any swap, that the LAND (not buildings) to be given away cannot be advantageously used for park purposes. Of course the seminary land can still be used for open space and the buildings for non-profit community enrichment. Further, swapped land must be of equal appraised value. The MacDonald parcel was called by the First Peoples "u-as" "gravel rattling down" (Hitchman, WA Place Names) -- and now recognized as a geologic hazard, critical area and shoreline zone, with no access which has not sold for decades. This landslide zone's value is far less than that of the seminary landmark.

Fulfill your duty. Keep the park public -- reject the Daniels proposal and give the public option a chance! Dear commissioners,

I am very concerned about the possibility of selling the seminary at St. Edwards State Park to a private developer. Why do they need the land if not for the possibility of selling it if their renovation goes over budget and they cannot pay the difference? Eventually they will sell the land to a third party. Will there be controls on who that third party can be? Can the property be sold to overseas investors? What guarantees will the state put in place to ensure that the publicâ€™s risk is minimal? Witness what happened when the Seattle School district sold their high schools to developers and lost control of property that belonged to the public. In addition this idea of swapping prime land in the center of the park for a ravine filled, steeply sloped, landslide prone and landlocked without access is flat out idiotic and based on the sense that we must save the building, when the land is far more valuable. The building is secondary to the land, of which there will be less and less as population growth explodes in our area. Public parks are for the public, for everyone, not the 1% who can afford to spend major bucks to stay in a boutique hotel. Public parks are places where people who do not have access to free and open spaces to enjoy nature. Now we will possibly have a major private enterprise limiting access to the public so a building can be saved.

September 3, 2015

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-2650

Re: Item E-5: Saint Edward Seminary – Extension of Deadline for Proposals

Dear Commissioners:

As you vote on the motion to grant a time extension for development plans at Saint Edward that, if “successful” would eventually result in the sale, trade or transfer of recreationally viable and valuable park land into private hands, I ask that you consider the following and vote no on the request:

The Land:

Saint Edward would not exist today if it weren’t for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) that enabled the State to acquire the land for outdoor recreation and hold it “in perpetuity” for that purpose. Anyone concerned about the future of Saint Edward would be well served to read records on file with the National Parks Service chronicling the extraordinary efforts made by our state legislators and officials, including the governor, to acquire this land with matching funds appropriated by the legislature.

The property when acquired in 1930 by the Diocese of Seattle was in a remote location removed from commercial and residential development. Today it remains undeveloped and has become a rare oasis providing residents and visitors alike with a true, undiluted and de-commercialized experience in contrast to what exists in the now highly developed surroundings. This defines the park’s character and must be preserved.

The 9.7 acre “McDonald property”, proposed for trade, does not compare in quality or significance to the land at the core of the park’s plateau. The McDonald property adds steep terrain very similar in character to what already exists throughout the park. It has been ranked as a project by the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) and meets all requirements for acquisition with public funding through the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). It remains eligible for funding in fiscal year 2015-17 if higher ranked projects close short or drop out. If the Commission feels it is important to acquire this property then public funding rather than a “land swap” should be the preferred means of acquisition.

The Building:

The seminary is a 90,000 square-foot building. It has not been fully used since 1976. Acquisition of the building was incidental to acquisition of the land when purchased by the State in 1977. It’s purpose for use as a school ceased once it was acquired by the State. Full, intensive use of the building was never the reason for the property to be acquired. The property remains true to its purpose without use of the building. To most visitors it is a curiosity. They come to the park for experience of the natural environment and the opportunity to engage in a variety of outdoor activities. No one will be deprived of the pleasures of visiting the park because there is no on site lodging. Commercial accommodations are available within easy reach of anyone wanting to visit the park.

The building is only one element of the park’s listing on the National Historic Register. Aside from some mitigation requirements, there is no legal obligation for the building to be preserved and maintained in perpetuity. There would be extraordinary expense were the building to be put into active use. The choice before you is to either: a) sell the land into private hands; or b) save the land and find some less costly and less intrusive use for the building and either partially or entirely remove it as discussed under “Plan B.”

Personally I would like to see the entire footprint of the seminary building retained, the dormitory wing removed and replaced with a pleasing outdoor memorial garden; the architecturally significant areas, such as the grand dining hall and bell tower, retained either as a monument or for public use, if feasible. The memorial garden area would have low maintenance costs and become accessible to all the public rather than exclusively for patrons of a boutique hotel. There would be no loss but instead an enhancement to the recreational value of the park.

As for the proposed concept of selling or trading the seminary building to a private business there are no guarantees that future uses of a privatized building and land would remain consistent with its location in a State Park. If you, as caretakers of our parklands, are willing to vacate existing LWCF land covenants for the sake of preserving a building, why wouldn’t a business person who must cater to commercial, profit-related interests be as likely to violate covenants made as part of a real estate contract when subject to unforeseen economic and political pressures that are inevitable in future.

Your vote is not a referendum on Daniels Real Estate per se or its competency. Rather, it is a referendum on principles of wise and good management of public recreational lands which are so essential to the well being of our citizenry. Please choose wisely.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Judith Finn 2504 N.E. 140th Street Seattle WA 98125 [email protected]