Final Minutes

STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEE Remote Access Meeting Olympia, Washington 98504

January 28, 2021 10 a.m.

Final Minutes

MEMBERS PARTICIPATING: Denny Heck, Lieutenant Governor & Chair Kim Wyman, Secretary of State Katy Taylor (for Hilary Franz, Commissioner of Public Lands) Kelly Wicker, Governor’s Designee

OTHERS PARTICIPATING: Damien Bernard, Department of Enterprise Services Sharon Case, South Capitol Neighborhood Association Kevin Dragon, Department of Enterprise Services Bill Frare, Department of Enterprise Services Marygrace Goddu, City of Olympia Valerie Gow, Puget Sound Meeting Services Greg Griffith, Olympia Historical Society Bigelow House Museum Organization Jennifer Kilmer, Washington State Historical Society MariJane Kirk, Department of Enterprise Services Ann Larson, Department of Enterprise Services Annette Meyer, Department of Enterprise Services Allen Miller, Citizen Jennifer Mortensen, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation Michelle Sadlier, Docomomo WEWA Walter Schacht, Mithun Architects Michael Sullivan, Citizen Ted Yoder, Department of Enterprise Services

Welcome and Introductions & Approval of Agenda Secretary Kim Wyman called the regular State Capitol Committee (SCC) virtual meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

Secretary Wyman welcomed Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck to the committee.

Lieutenant Governor Heck thanked Secretary Wyman for the introduction. He noted the Lieutenant Governor has a statutory assignment to attend boards and commission meetings. Having lived in the South Capitol Neighborhood for many years, and as former Chief Clerk, he had responsibilities for the State Capitol Building. The opportunity to be involved in issues pertinent to the Capitol Campus are important to him.

Members and staff provided self-introduction. A meeting quorum was attained. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 2 of 14

Secretary Wyman recommended adding public comment to the agenda.

Lieutenant Governor Heck moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously.

Approval of October 15, 2020 Meeting Minutes - Action Katy Taylor moved, seconded by Secretary Wyman, to approve the October 15, 2020 minutes as published. Motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of 2021 SCC Chair and Vice Chair – Action Secretary Wyman invited nominations for Chair.

Secretary Wyman nominated Lieutenant Governor Heck as Chair. Ms. Taylor seconded the nomination.

Lieutenant Governor Heck accepted the nomination.

By unanimous affirmation, Lieutenant Governor Heck was elected to serve as Chair.

Lieutenant Governor Heck invited nominations for Vice Chair.

Ms. Taylor nominated Secretary Wyman to serve as Vice Chair. Lieutenant Governor Heck seconded the nomination.

By unanimous affirmation, Secretary Wyman was elected to serve as Vice Chair.

Public Comments Bill Frare, Department of Enterprise Services (DES) Assistant Director of Facilities Professional Services, outlined the public comment process.

Lieutenant Governor Heck encouraged citizens to be cognizant of the time and summarize comments to the extent possible.

DES Planning and Project Delivery Program Manager Kevin Dragon confirmed DES received written comments by the published deadline. The comments will be included in the official meeting record.

Lieutenant Governor Heck invited comments from the public.

Jennifer Mortensen, Outreach Director, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, reported the agency is a statewide non-profit dedicated to the preservation of historic places. She also submitted a letter to the committee; however, the organization is particularly concerned about the proposal and the predesign study involving the demolition of the Pritchard Library because the organization believes the building is an extremely important mid-century building of public architecture and is one of the jewels on the State Capitol Campus. She asked the committee not to approve the predesign study to afford more time to evaluate other options that would preserve the Pritchard Building and identify a suitable reuse of the building to enable retention of the building.

Michelle Sadlier thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak prior to moving forward on some of the proposals. She serves as a boardmember of DOCOMOMO WEWA (International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement) in SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 3 of 14

Western Washington. The organization also submitted a letter to the committee. She asked for consideration of additional time to ensure the project (Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign) follows state regulations and laws including RCW 79.24.710 and RCW 79,24.720, particularly the requirement that the project comply with the U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed demolition would be a direct violation of those standards. The request is to seek more opportunities to identify alternatives as it would be ideal from the organization’s perspective because of the importance of the building to the state and the nation. The building’s architect, Paul Thiry, also designed the Century 21 Exposition complex in Seattle. The Pritchard Building is a beautiful work of art on the campus. The organization is seeking opportunities for the committee to identify alternative uses for the building, as well as requesting the addition of the State Capitol Conservator to the planning process similar to other practices for DES projects. She understands the State Capitol Conservator was not consulted. She recommended reaching out to the Governor’s appointed State Historic Preservation Officer because there was limited conversation with the Preservation Officer to discuss alternatives.

Kelly Wicker joined the meeting.

Sharon Case, South Capitol Neighborhood Association, referred to materials the association provided to the committee offering more details about member concerns. The association believes that the entire expansion proposal, which could entail three individual buildings on the campus, should begin by considering the West Campus as a whole as it sets the stage for development options. The proposed three new buildings are interrelated and represent a monumental change to the campus and would have long- lasting impacts. Through the committee’s action, the association believes members have a great opportunity of getting it right by directing a development process that demands comprehensive planning. A piecemeal approach would be a huge mistake because the buildings individually should not be considered as standalone facilities because they are interrelated. The process needs to conduct an analysis of the data and the assumptions relating to campus access issues. These are perennial issues and this is a great opportunity to address transportation, parking, pedestrian use, and now after COVID, future office capacity needs based on telework experience, security that is informed by activities occurring on the campus this year, and design. The impacts to the capital city and surrounding neighborhoods must be addressed as the nexus is vital. It is also important to ensure a robust stakeholder process throughout all three stages of predesign, design, and construction. Finally, it would be important to create a mechanism to provide architectural oversight to ensure continuity of design. She understands it has been pursued for other capital cities to great success and she believes it would be a valuable step for this campus because of the amount of expansion on the campus. By addressing those vital issues, it is paramount to achieving an overarching construction project that enhances the majestic beauty and use of the State Capitol Campus. For those reasons, the South Capitol Neighborhood Association opposes the predesigns of the proposed buildings.

Marygrace Goddu agreed with the previous comments. Her attendance to the meeting is in the capacity of a historic preservation officer for the City of Olympia; however, she did not anticipate providing comments and is speaking as a citizen rather than a representative of the City of Olympia. Her comments are not inconsistent with the City’s positions, which have been conveyed by a letter to the committee. Ms. Case’s comments cover the points she believes are of greatest concern to many people. As a former employee of DES for many years and participating in the development of the Development Study for the Capitol Campus in 2017, there are many more options for development of the campus than revealed to the committee, which is especially concerning to her. The issue addresses Ms. Case’s point that the work of such scale should be undertaken with a clear understanding of the larger campus and for all opportunities in a comprehensive planning context. She asked for balanced decision-making as the committee moves forward to ensure all sides are considered particularly for historic preservation, but also to ensure the process of design for the State Capitol Committee as decision-maker is fully respected. DES has been doing an amazing job of researching options at legislative direction and not at the direction of the SCC. By SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 4 of 14

design, the SCC could be taking a more comprehensive and directive role. She looks forward to the results of the work group study underway.\

Greg Griffith, Olympia Historical Society Bigelow House Museum Organization, said the organization provided previous (written) comments. The only point he wants to reiterate not addressed by previous speakers is the reminder to the SCC that the proposal and the proposed alternatives directly impact in a major way two National Register of Historic Places, Historic District buildings, as well as two individual properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places – the GA Building and the Pritchard Library plus an important design historic landscape on the campus, as well as other properties that have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places including the Newhouse Building, the Press Houses, and the Visitor Center, which is representative of mid-century modern architecture that is a part of the heritage of the campus. It is important for that recognition to be acknowledged as having meaning and importance that should be considered in terms of the process for designing the new legislative campus as proposed. Those designations mean something and they are important to the constituency of the Olympia Historical Society Bigelow House Museum and others. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the significance within the process and that the information should serve as a starting point for accommodating new uses and new structures on the campus, as well as its effects on the South Capitol Neighborhood Historic District. It is a reminder that those places have importance to the community and should be considered in how to move forward with the planning process.

Michael Sean Sullivan said he submitted a letter regarding the issue. He and his company, Artifacts, served for a decade as the architectural conservator for the state campus and wrote historic structures reports and detailed histories of all the capital group of buildings. He served in that capacity at the time of the Nisqually Earthquake and participated in the restoration work on the Legislative Building and other buildings requiring repair following the earthquake. His most satisfying building was the state library building as it is an absolute masterpiece. The building is only 30 years younger than the Legislative Building. Sixty years have passed since the building was constructed and it is a true historic building. It is also thoughtfully placed within the ensemble of the capitol group on the West Campus. He contacted Walter Schacht at Mithun as he has known Mr. Schacht for many years and respects his work as an architect. However, after reviewing the preferred analysis and the conclusions, the information appears clumsy in terms of the symmetry for reuse of the site. He is convinced that if the building (Pritchard) was demolished, the site would not be buildable with the same symmetry and composure that currently exists. He also believes the building is architecturally and structurally much more complex than the conclusions documented as the building survived the Nisqually Earthquake with no cracks in the plate glass windows following the earthquake. In 60 years, the building has received little attention and he has long believed that the Legislature, the State Capitol, and citizens are served by the constant reminder of a library and the importance of true information and intelligence similar to the Library of Congress that sits across from the U.S. Congress. He often has thought that the building was designed for public access as it provides a protected porch with views to the Legislative Building and it is a treasure for the state. With the advent of removing the Visitor Center, he is hopeful that the Isaac Stevens’ (Territorial) Library, which traveled by ship around the Horn of South America when the state was a territory would be placed in the Washington Room, which was built for the library collection. A mural tells the story of the state along with various works of art, the Du Pen fountain, the Fitzgerald mosaic, and Dell-Tee furniture originally designed for the Pritchard Building, which could be returned to become a visitor center and an interpretative center for the State Capitol. The Pritchard Building is likely not accommodating for office use but it belongs on the campus. It is important to consider how the public visits the campus, especially after recent events where so many issues will need to be considered in terms of security and managing public access to the campus. There is a solution and a program for the Pritchard Building that should be considered. Although the building does not adequately function as an office, he urged the committee not to give up on the building as having the building demolished and leaving a permanent ghost of an architectural masterpiece would be SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 5 of 14

a disservice. Maryan Reynolds serves as a demonstration of a woman’s work. When considering women in the state’s history, the building represents the pioneering work of a librarian and a woman who was the State Librarian and through her will was able to have the building constructed.

Allen Miller, Spokane, Washington, said prior to moving to Spokane, he lived 35 years in the South Capitol Neighborhood and is very familiar with the Wilder and White Plan and the Olmsted plans for the West Campus. He agreed with the previous speakers that the Paul Thiry Pritchard Building is a classical and historic building that fits within the Wilder and White Plan and should remain. Everyone recognized at one point when the GA Building was built, it was one mistake that exists on the West Campus. The Helen Sommers Building does justice to the Wilder and White and Olmsted plans. Rather than repeat previous comments, he believes the predesign needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the Wilder and White and the Olmsted Brothers plans from many years ago.

Establish 2021 SCC Regular Meeting Calendar – Action Lt. Governor Heck reviewed the proposed 2021 meeting calendar:

• March 18, 2021 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. • June 17, 2021 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. • October 7, 2021 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. • December 16, 2021 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the 2021 meeting calendar as published. Motion carried unanimously.

SCC Work Group Update – Informational Lieutenant Governor Heck invited Assistant Director Frare to provide the update.

Assistant Director Frare reported the SCC held a special meeting on August 10, 2020 to establish some procedures, review statutes governing the committee, and establish Policies and Procedures. At the meeting, SCC authorized convening a work group to review applicable RCWs and WACs. The intent was to convene the work group prior to the legislative session. However, a delay in convening the work group is recommended until after the legislative session to afford more time to devote to the review.

Topics to discuss by the work group include:

• Review current statutes and administrative codes. • Identify those RCWs and WACs pertaining to SCC and the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC) that are inconsistent, conflicting, overlapping in authority, unclear, or no longer relevant. • Consider the need for a common vision for the Capitol Campus and master planning. • Consider current challenges and capital needs on the campus and the level of executive branch and legislative branch oversight necessary to address those needs. • Consider project phases and the level of involvement of the executive and legislative branch, and how project relate to the Master Plan. • Consider Monuments and Memorials on the Capitol Campus, and the respective roles of DES, CCDAC, SCC, Office of Financial Management (OFM), Governor’s Office, and the Legislature in evaluating, approving, placement, funding, and construction and maintenance. • Consider landscaping and viewscape on the Capitol Campus and the level of involvement of the executive and legislative branch, and how changes and projects relate to the Master Plan. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 6 of 14

• Consider the cultural and historical significance of the Capitol Campus and preservation of those assets for future generations. • Consider budget and funding and the respective roles of DES, CCDAC, SCC, OFM, Governor’s Office, and the Legislature. • Draft revisions and updates to the RCWs and WACs to implement the recommendation of the work group, and if necessary, develop bylaws.

The work group meetings will begin following the end of the legislative session and continue through fall 2021.

Lieutenant Governor Heck advised that the designee to serve on the work group from his office is Dallas Roberts.

There were no questions or comments from the committee.

Insurance Commissioner Office Building Predesign – Action Lieutenant Governor Heck recognized Assistant Director Frare.

Assistant Director Frare advised that the CCDAC received two briefings on the predesign and one briefing to the SCC pursuant to the procedures adopted in August 2020. The SCC requested one presentation following by a briefing to consider action on the proposal. The predesign was directed by the Legislature to construct a building for the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC). Shortly after the predesign was initiated, OIC identified the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) as a partner to co- locate in the building. DES proceeded with the predesign in accordance with the proviso and identified three sites. The proviso was updated during the next legislative session authorizing the partnership between OIC and DCYF. Following approval, DES selected a preferred alternative of the General Administration (GA) Building and completed the predesign. He invited Walter Schacht with Mithun to provide an update on the predesign.

Mr. Schacht addressed the five questions asked by the committee during his presentation. He reviewed proviso language for the project. The predesign began with a needs assessment to include examination of existing offices occupied by OIC and DCYF. Operationally, both agencies have limitations with operations divided among eight office buildings and lacking a sense of space to support employees or serve the public. The GA Building has been mothballed. The building suffered damage during the Nisqually Earthquake. Maintenance of the building costs the state $315,000 annually. The City of Olympia has prohibited occupancy of the building because of the building’s condition.

The preferred alternative consolidates OIC and DCYF into a 210,000 square-foot new building on Opportunity Site 1 (GA Building site). The new building would significantly increase space use efficiency and the project budget includes a separate parking structure located on the ProArts site. The proposed funding for construction is through alternative financing (COPS) based on rent paid by both agencies. The project is planned to achieve the goals included in the capital budget proviso showcasing the state’s mass timber industry, achieving a net-zero ready building, and supporting development of a campus-wide net- zero energy strategy.

The current situation of the OIC includes three different locations requiring employees to travel between offices. Existing space does not accommodate predicted agency growth and spaces do not align with current best practices or state guidelines for workplace strategies. A new building would improve staff retention, recruitment, and well-being. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 7 of 14

DCYF is located in five different locations and contends with many of the same challenges associated with the quality of space, service to the public, and how the agency works as a team.

During the predesign, both agencies provided input on the development of the functional program in the new building. One goal to increase space use efficiency acknowledged changes in the contemporary workplace of smaller work spaces, more room for collaboration, less closed offices, and recognition of more teleworking by employees as experienced during the COVID pandemic. Existing programmed space per FTE is 264 square feet with programmed space of 185 square feet per FTE forecasted for the new building. The pandemic has provided the opportunity to take advantage of digital resources, which will likely continue into the future. That assumption is included in the proposed reduction in employee workspace.

An alternative site analysis was completed. The state capital budget required a review of the three opportunity sites on Capitol Campus. Secretary Wyman had inquired about whether other sites were considered. The predesign was directed specifically by the legislation to analyze the three sites only.

DES initiated the process and engaged the planning team to support the evaluation process for parking. A variety of sites were considered that accounted for 87 existing parking spaces on the current GA site with most used by the Washington State Patrol who are assigned to the Helen Sommers Building. A traffic analysis was completed reflecting a need of 612 to 740 parking spaces. The analysis determined an above grade structure was the preferred option to achieve cost efficiency and long-term flexibility. Six sites were studied. The ProArts site was the only site that had sufficient capacity and the proximity to serve the needs of the project. The plan includes 719 to 780 parking spaces.

Mr. Schacht reviewed the level of analysis completed for the parking projection. He described how the space in the building was tied closely with parking capacity. Considering concerns about parking on the campus and in the City, the analysis used a worst-case scenario for parking and forecasted sufficient funding in the proposal for the capital budget to ensure adequate funds would be available to accommodate parking needs. The analysis completed by a traffic consultant considered mode of travel, parking need analysis based on parking management protocols, number of people currently parking on the campus, and an assumption that 232 existing parking spaces would serve other functions on the campus. The analysis revealed that because of teleworking and changes in mode of travel, the number of vehicles would likely be less by 2030 but the budget includes more parking capacity to provide some leeway.

The preferred alternative, an H-shaped floor plan, forms a built edge along the north side of the Great Lawn. The predesign tracks closely with the Olmsted Landscape Preservation Plan prepared by Mithun in 2015. The H-shaped building maximizes daylight access, enables outdoor air for natural ventilation, provides garden space and habitat around the building, and provides views over Capitol Lake, City of Olympia, and the Great Lawn. The design maximizes parking supply on the campus. The new building is located within the existing footprint of the GA Building to avoid conflict with the sewer outfall from the Helen Sommers Building.

The existing reinforced solider pile wall along the steep slope was analyzed to avoid any additional structural load on the wall. The budget includes $1.2 million to upgrade the wall, which supports parking areas and an existing emergency drive located to the west of the building.

Many existing guidelines speak to maximum building height on the historic West Campus. The 2017 State Capitol Development Study identified a much larger building on the site of up to seven stories. The study was adopted by the SCC in 2018. The team reviewed previous projects and CCDAC meeting minutes and SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 8 of 14

discovered a lack of clarity as to what establishes the maximum height of cornice lines on the campus. The 2017 study includes an understanding that the horizontal line off the parapet/top of the cornice of the outside wall on the Cherberg Building extended radially around the campus depicts the height of all buildings on the campus. The study established seven stories as the height of buildings allowed on the campus. There could, however, be other understandings because the Cherberg Building is 70 feet tall and other buildings should be no taller than 70 feet. The team evaluated all options and proposes aligning the south wall of the building facing the Great Lawn with the cornice height of the Helen Sommers Building to create a continuous cornice line from the Helen Sommers Building to the OIC/DCYF Building for a consistent façade along the Great Lawn. On the north side of the site off the courtyard, the site slopes down a story providing an option of increasing the building height by one floor for a building height of six stories on the north side of the site facing downtown Olympia to accommodate programming. The proposed predesign reflects a building lower than the 2017 study depicted and it is lower than the Executive Office Building previously approved for development on the site.

Mr. Schacht displayed an illustration of the building reflecting a four-story wing of the OIC/DCYF Building facing the Great Lawn to the south and the taller wing facing the north.

The team completed a detailed planning study to ensure adequate capacity for offices, and improve space use efficiency, and take advantage of an initiative in the State Capitol Budget to use cross-laminated timber (CLT). The intent is to plan a building based on a structural bay that would support the inclusion of CLT while adhering to the budget. The building could be constructed as a CLT building, fit the program needs, and be cost-effective.

Other provisions of the State Capitol Budget were satisfied. The target in the State Capitol Budget for energy use intensity is less than 35. The estimated energy use intensity for the building is less than 18. The building is a high-performance envelope of mechanical and electrical systems and is ready for integration within the remaining campus for readiness of net-zero. However, the entire campus must be considered as a whole to implement the net-zero goal. The new building on the campus would feature state forest products by using CLT.

Mr. Schacht cited a planning study demonstrating that a six-level parking garage could be placed on half of the ProArts site preserving the Dan Evans tree at an estimated cost of $75 million.

Assistant Director Frare reported DES included the project within the department’s Capitol Budget. The project was not included in the Governor’s Budget. No construction or design funds are included in the budget for the 21-23 biennium. Staff is seeking approval of the predesign by the SCC to complete the planning process. A predesign is designed to address many questions and consider many options and alternatives. The options and alternatives address stormwater, parking, utilities, site configuration on the campus, programming, tenancy, and building size, etc. Many times, a predesign lacks the ability, time, scope, or budget to fully investigate and analyze those issues. In that respect, the predesign is designed to identify those issues to be considered during the design of the project. The design process includes validation of the predesign as one of the first steps in terms of reexamining the assumptions, evaluation from a different perspective, and whether the assumptions are still valid. Design also identifies any missing information and whether there is agreement with the recommendations and findings. Following those tasks, the design process is initiated.

Manager Dragon summarized public comments received specifically for the project. Overall, DES received 26 public comments. Only one comment pertains to the OIC. The concern surrounds the Master Plan and the central theme of identifying the need to update the long-term comprehensive planning for the campus, how the plan should effectively guide the campus landscape and changes to the campus, and how the project SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 9 of 14

overall will change the visual and character of the campus. Without an articulated vision, there is concern about the architectural character of the campus. Programming is critical, but it should not lead the discussion for the building’s design, parking, and circulation.

Assistant Director Frare requested the committee’s approval of the predesign subject to future funding.

Lieutenant Governor Heck invited comments from the committee.

Kelly Wicker said she understands DCYF is no longer a partner within the proposal. Assistant Director Frare affirmed a number of changes have occurred over the last six months. While DCYF has not officially withdrawn from the agreement to occupy the building, the agency has indicated the project is not a priority as the agency is moving forward in the current legislative session with other priorities. Ms. Wicker asked about the potential outcome should DCYF withdraw from the project. Assistant Director Frare advised that if that should occur, DES does not have an alternate plan for a partner agency at this time other than pursuing further investigation.

Secretary Wyman thanked Mr. Schacht and Manager Dragon for their follow-up from the last meeting to address her questions. She thanked Assistant Director Frare and his team for the update on the work group and clarifying the role of the SCC. When she was first appointed to the SCC, she sought information from her staff and former Secretary of State Ralph Munro about the role of the SCC. Based on that feedback, she understood that the committee balances legislative initiatives for buildings on the campus with the long- term vision of the overall architecture and design elements of the buildings and landscaping as outlined in the Wilder and White and Olmsted Plans. As a member of the committee, she has considered that view and has applied weight to all proposals adding new buildings or making changes to the campus that will last for decades. The committee must provide a balance and have an impact. Her concern is that the committee continues to review individual buildings and plans without an eye to the larger master plan for the campus to answer the overarching question of what the Capitol Campus should look like and what should the impact of decisions made today be in the next 50 to 100 years rather than considering the emergent needs of employees, programs, or organizations. Additionally, as a prior proponent for constructing a building on the campus, she believes the committee should weigh and evaluate through the lens of a long-term and thoughtful approach. As such, she has difficulty approving a predesign of the building in that larger context.

Ms. Taylor agreed, although she questioned the technical aspects of some of the assumptions, such as the assumptions for teleworking and the basis for the achieving a reduction goal of 20%. Assistant Director Frare advised that the first part of the predesign was pre-COVID with the second half involving the detailed analysis of the preferred alternative beginning after the declaration of the COVID pandemic in late March 2020. The 20% reduction goal was based on conversations with both tenants as to the estimate of impacts from teleworking for both agencies. Ms. Taylor said the 2019 telework figures for the two agencies are not close to a 20% level, which is why she is concerned as there might not be adequate space based on those assumptions. She agreed the committee should pause and consider all the issues holistically.

Ms. Wicker agreed with Secretary Wyman as well.

Lieutenant Governor Heck asked for input on future action with respect to the proposed project to give direction to DES or whether to suspend the proposal, as it appears in the context of Secretary Wyman’s comments that there is a need for more conversations about the broader strategy.

Ms. Taylor recommended suspending action and engage in conversations in light of the public comment as the lack of an identified source of funding speaks to less urgency for a decision and enables time for the committee to engage in a thoughtful and broad review of the proposal. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 10 of 14

Secretary Wyman agreed with Ms. Taylor’s recommendation.

Lieutenant Governor Heck offered that the next agenda item on the Legislative Campus Modernization project will likely require extensive discussion by the committee; however, based on the length of the agenda to consider actions on the Tumwater Modular Building Predesign and the Minor Works Monument for George Bush he recommended deferring further consideration of that proposal and immediately consider the two remaining projects on the agenda.

Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Kelly Wicker, to defer further consideration of item 7 (Legislative Campus Modernization project) and immediately consider item 8, Tumwater Modular Building Predesign and item 9, Proposed Minor Works Monument for George Bush. Motion carried unanimously.

Tumwater Modular Building Predesign – Action Lieutenant Governor Heck recognized Ted Yoder, DES Project Manager.

Project Manager Yoder reported the predesign included a needs assessment to identify alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative. The team identified 13 alternatives and deemed them not feasible either economically or efficient to improve the operational needs of the Print and Imaging Program and the Consolidated Mail Services Program (CMS).

Project Manager Yoder introduced Damien Bernard, DES Print and Mail Program Manager, and MariJane Kirk, DES Assistant Director, Business Resources Division.

Program Manager Bernard reported Consolidated Mail Services and Printing and Imaging Programs represent current print mail operations at DES. The programs involve intertwined processes. Currently, the intertwined processes account for a six mile distance between two locations. CMS is located in a leased building in downtown Olympia and Printing and Imaging is located near the Olympia Airport in the south area of Tumwater. One of the goals of the project is creating operating efficiencies related to the processes and improving security controls for protecting personally identifiable information on documents. The leased building housing CMS has multiple levels between operational areas requiring movement of materials up and down ramps using lifts as part of the current workload. Those factors were considered as part of the predesign.

Project Manager Yoder reported the predesign considered programming space needs for each program and the areas that could be co-shared (office space, conference rooms, servers, warehousing, and restrooms) to reduce the inventory needs of both programs as they would no longer be shipping between locations. The predesign factored greater security, operating efficiencies, and cost effectiveness by co- locating all programs in one facility.

Continuous operations are necessary to maintain both programs throughout construction or relocation. Security is a primary concern, as well as improving workflows for each program and between the programs and minimizing any impacts to the Secretary of State (SOS) Records Center at Isabella Bush, which is connected to the modular building. Additional space within the modular building is currently occupied by the SOS, which would be vacated once the new building for the SOS is completed. The costs associated with the building’s capital budget and co-location operating budget requirements were evaluated along with projected cost savings.

SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 11 of 14

The team examined 13 alternatives. The team ultimately focused on two primary alternatives. The two alternatives are similar in layout with the only minor difference of an enclosed dock area to provide a secure shipping facility.

Assistant Director Kirk said that based on the needs assessment, the team determined Alternative 2.1C provided the most operationally efficient and cost effective space to facilitate co-location for the DES Print and Mail programs. The option utilizes existing low ceiling area on a single level of the modular building for CMS and it consolidates printing, imaging, and warehouse operations into high ceiling areas to maximize the use of existing vertical space. The option also repurposes existing space currently utilized by the SOS for records storage. The SOS has plans to consolidate the records stored at the site to the new SOS building following completion. The alternative also enables a phased approach for continuous operations within existing space minimizing impacts to customers, as well as enabling the coordination of project schedules with the SOS and minimizing impacts to the adjoining Isabella Bush Building, currently occupied by the SOS. Co-location also minimizes security exposure for DES by eliminating five daily trips to transport personally identifiable information between multiple facilities. The project has an estimated total cost of $28.75 million of which $21 million in capital expense is required to address the aging infrastructure and $7.5 million to support co-location, which would be funded through a long-term Certificate of Participation (COP).

DES believes the project to co-locate Print and Mail operations will experience immediate savings of $520,028.00 annually by eliminating the CMS leased space and associated costs and by reducing transportation costs. Additional potential savings not factored in the predesign include efficiencies from streamlined workflow reducing inventory and supply costs, and reductions in utility costs due to system upgrades. Some savings are anticipated in labor costs because of opportunities to cross-train and reductions in overtime and the number of on call positions. DES believes the project would provide operational efficiency and cost savings.

Assistant Director Kirk invited questions from members.

Assistant Director Frare reported the predesign was initiated by DES to address failing building systems in the modular building and operational needs in the Print and Imaging Program and Consolidated Mail Program. The project was not funded in the Governor’s Budget. DES is seeking to complete the predesign planning process and the committee’s approval subject to funding in the future.

Secretary Wyman clarified that the modular building currently houses two collections. The Isabella Bush section stores records that are state government records that are accessed very frequently with SOS staff pulling and delivering the records to state agencies and offices across the state on a daily basis. That collection is not scheduled to move to the new SOS building. The collection that will relocate to the new building is the library of federal documents collection. Her concern surrounds an assumption that is inaccurate in terms of the new library/archives building housing all SOS records. The predesign for the new SOS building did not account for those records to reduce costs. Additionally, record documents are different than archival documents, which are permanent. Records are eventually destroyed.

Assistant Director Frare affirmed that he and Project Manager Dragon would work with staff to validate the information.

Program Manager Bernard noted that the Records Center would remain in the modular building with the library collection moving to the new SOS facility. Secretary Wyman thanked him for the clarification.

SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 12 of 14

At the request of Secretary Wyman for the benefit of the committee, Project Manager Dragon reviewed an illustration of the building. Program Manager Bernard identified the location of the Records Center. Library space is located in a different location, which would move to the new SOS facility.

Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the Tumwater Modular Building Predesign. Motion carried unanimously.

Proposed Minor Works Monument for George Bush – Action Lieutenant Governor Heck recognized Assistant Director Frare.

Assistant Director Frare reported DES received a proposal to construct a minor works monument for George Bush. He introduced Jennifer Kilmer, Director of the Washington State Historical Society, who will present the proposal.

Manager Dragon added that proposals are received by sponsors wishing to add a monument to the Capitol Campus. Proposals must meet the guidelines of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) relative to how the proposal is reviewed and the criteria for major and minor works on the State Capitol Campus. A major work is considered a larger monument, such as Winged Victory or the Law Enforcement Memorial. Minor works area typically plaques or other smaller monuments or living monuments, such as trees. WAC 200.230 addresses the guidelines and criteria for review and approval of both minor and major works. DES has established standards for construction, size, scale, and other aspects that must be satisfied for placement on the campus. Proposals are reviewed by staff with a recommendation for approval or denial offered to DES Director Chris Liu. Director Liu referred the proposal to the SCC and CCDAC for consideration and approval. The CCDAC considered the project during a special meeting on January 7, 2021 and recommended approval of the project to the SCC.

Ms. Kilmer reported the minor works monument would commemorate Black pioneer, George Bush and his son, William Owen Bush. An existing tree on the campus was planted from seed stock from a tree planted on property in Bush Prairie in Tumwater where the Bush family lived. The tree originated from a seedling Bush brought from Missouri. George Bush represents the migration journey that he took to reach Washington. The Bush butternut tree is a beautiful tree on the campus. The proposed marker would be placed in view of the tree while acknowledging that the marker and its inscription are independent of the tree should something happen to the tree in the future.

Funding is through an appropriation by the Legislature in the capital budget last year by Representative Pettigrew and other members of the Legislative Black Caucus for observance and celebration of Black History Month in 2021. Provisions in the appropriation included permanent fixtures and/or structures commemorating the history of African Americans in the state.

George Bush was born in 1790 in Missouri, and he and his wife, Isabella, helped to establish the first non- indigenous American settlement in Washington. The Bush’s began their journey in Missouri via the Oregon Trail to escape prejudice and discrimination in Missouri. They arrived in the Oregon territory, which had recently passed laws that discriminated against African Americans. Consequently, the Bush party moved on to an area north of the Columbia River in Puget Sound now known as the City of Tumwater to escape discrimination. By attracting other pioneers to the area, they helped stake a claim for the area to become part of the United States rather than part of Britain. George Bush is one of the state’s first Black pioneers and played a direct role in establishing the State of Washington’s control over the area. His son, William Owen Bush, served in the first Washington Legislature and was a primary sponsor of the legislation that helped establish Washington State University. The history of George Bush and his family played a strong role in the state’s history. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 13 of 14

The proposed location for the marker is near the World War II Memorial. The Bush butternut tree is located near a bench affording an opportunity for the site to house the monument adjacent to the bench in view of the Bush butternut tree. The design of the marker is under the guidance of the WAC in terms of size, shape, and text. The 12” x 18” marker would be placed on granite with a 10” x 17” insert containing the inscription. The monument is funded from the capital appropriation during the legislative session in 2020. The monument would be maintained by DES as part of Capitol Campus maintenance.

The text would refer to George Bush’s role in settling the state and the petition by the Territorial Legislature to allow him to own his farm in addition to his eldest son’s contribution by serving in the Legislature and establishing Washington State University. No known image of George Bush exists. Ms. Kilmer shared that she has been working with staff at the SOS Office and others who have researched George Bush. The reference to George Bush does not include George Washington Bush as scholars have determined the conflation of Black pioneer George Washington who founded Centralia and George Bush who founded Tumwater. The correct citation is “George Bush.” An artist’s illustration exists of George Bush completed by an artist at the LA Times newspaper in 1969. The drawing is likely a drawing of George Washington from Centralia and not George Bush. No image would be included on the marker as none exist. The committee is considering the addition of an engraving of a tree. In the development of the text and the monument, the Historical Society is working with an advisory committee comprised of members representing Black heritage organizations across the state to include representatives from Blackpath.org, the Black Heritage Society, the Northwest African American Museum, as well as professors from African studies at the University of Puget Sound and the Commissioner of the African American Commission of Washington State. The committee approved the proposed marker to fulfill the appropriation by the Legislature.

Ms. Kilmer offered to answer questions and asked for approval of the proposed monument.

Lieutenant Governor Heck asked whether there are any known descendents of George Bush. Ms. Kilmer said she believes there are but does not have detailed information. The Bush family no longer owns Bush Prairie but there are descendents from George Bush and she is unsure if any descendants reside in the state. A historian in the Secretary of State’s Office has researched the history of George Bush and Bush Prairie.

Secretary Wyman acknowledged how George Bush was a significant pioneer for Thurston County. The first woman State Auditor is a descendent of George Bush. She offered to follow up with staff and provide additional information to the committee.

Program Manager Dragon said two public comments were received on the proposal. Both comments supported the proposal.

Lieutenant Governor Heck noted that he was previously involved in supporting the advocation of the proposal and believes the proposal is overdue and a wonderful idea.

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Wicker supported the proposal.

Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the proposed minor works monument (marker) commemorating George Bush and William Owen Bush. Motion carried unanimously.

Agency 10-Year Capital Plan - Informational Assistant Director Frare recommended deferring the update.

SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL January 28, 2021 Page 14 of 14

The committee agreed to receive public comments and defer consideration of item 7, Legislative Campus Modernization (formerly Newhouse Predesign).

Public Comments and Closing Remarks – Informational Program Manager Dragon reported the only public comments received pertained to item 7, as well as two comments relative to the item 5, SCC Work Group Update, from the Mayor of the City of Olympia who wants to ensure the City of Olympia works closely with the SCC Work Group and consider appointing a representative from the City for better coordination and collaboration between the state and the city. The second comment spoke to the importance of the SCC considering the higher historical nature of the campus in its caring and long-term master planning for the campus. The remaining comments were specific to item 7.

The committee discussed the option of extending the meeting to receive an update on the 10-Year Capital Plan and recommended deferring the update because of conflict with their respective schedules.

Lieutenant Governor Heck emphasized the committee’s deferral of item 7 because the proposal is not at the point of readiness for the committee’s consideration. The proposal will require more conversation by the SCC and he is hopeful the agenda can be planned accordingly to accommodate that discussion. He confirmed he would meet with Assistant Director Frare to discuss the next meeting’s agenda.

Adjournment - Action Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Kelly Wicker, to adjourn the meeting at 11:59 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.

Prepared by Valerie L. Gow, Recording Secretary/President Puget Sound Meeting Services, [email protected]

Approved by SCC at the March 18, 2021 Meeting without modifications.

State Capitol Campus Committee Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck (Chair), Secretary of State Kim Wyman (Vice Chair), Governor Inslee’s Designee Kelly Wicker, and Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz

JANUARY 28, 2021 (REMOTE ACCESS MEETING)

Public Comments Received

The attached public comments were received by 4:00 PM on January 27, 2021.

Enterprise Services staff provided a summary or acknowledgment of the public comments received during the dedicated Public Comment Period on the agenda.

One summary response may have addressed multiple comments. From: Alex Rolluda To: Dragon, Kevin (DES); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Wyman, Kim (SOS); Neary, Mark; Nelson, Sheri; Sheldon, Timothy; [email protected]; Kraft, Vicki; Doglio, Beth Cc: Liu, Chris (DES); Meyer, Annette (DES); McGahern, Des (DES); Larson, Ann (DES); Frare, Bill (DES); Hong, Rose (DES) Subject: CCDAC Meeting November 5, 2020 - Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign, Prichard Building Date: Saturday, November 7, 2020 7:46:14 PM

I am writing you regarding the Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign. After our CCDAC meeting on 11/5, I gave further thought to the recommendation of Walter Schacht with Mithun to demolish and replace the Prichard Building. I have great respect for Walter and his knowledge of the Capitol Campus. I have no doubt he and his team explored different options to preserve the Prichard Building. However, in respect to historic preservation, it is the general feeling that it is ‘better to preserve than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than construct’. Thus, I feel every effort must be made to explore all options to preserve. What does it say about our values when we spare no cost to preserve KeyArena (formally Washington State Pavilion, also a Paul Thiry design) but then, demolish a historical library building - one that is on the National Registry, received the AIA American Library Association Library Building Award as one of the most important regional archetypes of the mid-century Architecture?

I suggest that when the project moves to the design phase (or design-build), Mithun’s analysis is made available. The design team must be given the opportunity to come up with their own analysis, conclusions and recommendations. In the end, if preservation is still not feasible based on the analysis, we can have the peace of mind that we performed our due diligence.

As a member of CCDAC and advisory to SCC, I feel I would be negligent in my responsibility as an Architect on the Committee not to voice my concern.

Sincerely, Alex

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at: [email protected]

December 30, 2020

State Capitol Committee c/o Mr. Kevin Dragon Washington State Depaithent of Enterprise S ervices [email protected]

Re: Comments on Legislative campus Modernization-Predesign

Dear Committee Members:

The Board of the Olympia Historical Society-Bigelow House Museum (OHS-BHM) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the State Capitol Committee (SCC) on proposed Options A and 8 of the Legislative Campus Modernization (LCM) Predesign project. We understand that the SCC will make a decision on which option to pursue for further design and site plarming on the Capitol Campus.

Briefly, OHS-BHM appreciates and supports this effort by the Legislature and the SCC, working in partnership with the Department of Enterprise Services (DES), to maintain and enhance the Capitol Campus as the vital heart of Washington State government and as a safe and efficient workplace for legislators and staff. While we support the project goals, our review of the Alternatives Analysis and SCC and Capital Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC) meeting notes, all options including preferred option a.2 raise serious concerns about the impact of several aspects of the proposal on the campus' historic setting, architecture, landscape, and overall character.

Following are our concerns/comments:

> Our review of the Altematives Analysis reveal that the Pritchard Building will be demolished or substantially altered in both options. We pause to draw attention that Pritchard is individually listed in the National Register of Hjstorjc Places and is historically and architecturally significant for multiple reasons that are barely mentioned in the documents. While acknowledging problems that the building faces, OHS-BHM is unequivocal in recommending that Pritchard be rehabilitated and that any additions/alterations be designed to be compatible with its architectural character. Proposed demohtion/alteration alternatives should be considered o#rry as a last resort and after a thorough vetting of other possible design scenarios with the broader community and professionals with expertise in pertinent fields, such as historic preservation and hi storic architecture.

OLYMPIA IllsTORICAL SOC`lETY-BIGELOW HOUSE MUSEUM State Capitol Committee December 30, 2020 Page Two

> A second comment is our strong concern about the impact of the predesign options on the Capitol Campus plan, historic landscape, and overall character of the West Capitol Campus. Again, we want to emphasize that much of the campus west of Capitol Way is within the Washington Capitol Campus Historic District, listed jn the National Register of Historic Places. Both Options A and 8 appear to pose a threat to the character of the historic district particularly along the south edge, bordering the South Capitol Neighborhood Historic District. Combined with the demolition of the Conservatory and the deterioration of the General Administration Building (also individually listed in the National Register like the Pritchard Building) OHS-BHM is concerned that the integrity and historic character of the district will be significantly diminished. While we acknowledge the functional and structural shortcomings of the Newhouse Building, its architecture and the role it has played in the history of Washington state government is important to acknowledge. If rehabilitation and reuse of Newhouse is not feasible, we recommend that mitigation be provided for its loss. We also recommend thorough analysis of the visual and functional impact of the two options on the South Capitol Neighborhood, a historic district also listed in the National Register. Any identified negative impacts to the neighborhood should avoided if feasible, minimized, or mitigated.

> Like the Newhouse Building, OHS-BHM comments that the two Press Houses have attained recognition as having architectural and historical sigrificance in their own right. The Altematives Analysis indicates the buildings as being "displaced" by redevelopment of opportunity site six by a new Newhouse building. Again, we recommend alternatives to demolition be considered, such as moving and rehabilitating the houses at a new location.

+ The site plan for opportunity site six shows a new Newhouse Building surrounded by what appears to be a large surface parking lot. While we understand the need for parking for the convenience of legislators and staff, we comment that the paving of a large parking lot compromises the historic character of the West Capitol Campus and the integrity of the Olmsted Brothers designed landscape.

> Finally, and aside from our comments about the design and site planning impacts, OHS- BHM expresses our concern that the LCM process has not benefited from broader public notice and input. To reiterate, the Capitol Campus has immeasurable historic, architectural, and aesthetic importance not only to OHS-BHM members and Olympia, but to the entire state. Changes to the campus as contemplated by this project merit a robust effort to seek perspectives and ideas from a much larger audience than has occurred to date.

OLYMPIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY-BIGELOW HOUSE MuSEUM State Capitol Committee December 30, 2020 Page Three

In summary, the OHS-BHM Board of Directors recognize that the Capitol Campus is not a museum, but rather a vital, dynamic, working environment. We support the LCM goals of providing safe, functional, and dignified workplaces for our elected leaders and staff. However, we advocate for additional opportunities for the public and those with expertise in heritage related trades to join the conversation in reaching these goals. In having these larger conversations, we anticipate that the goals of the predesign are achieved while retaining the integrity of this nationally recognized historic place.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments for your consideration. As our organization works to preserve Olympia history, we have strong interest in following this proposal. Should you have questions, feel free to reach me and other board members at: o]\.hi COITl

Sincerely, ifexan#Ak Olympia Historical Society-Bigelow House Museum

C: Allyson Brooks, State Historic preservation officer Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee Former Senator Karen Fraser Olympia City Council Olympia Heritage Commission Chris Moore, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

OLYMPIA HISTORICAL SOC`lETY-BIGELOvi'' HOL'SE MUSEUM From: GREG and/or SHEILA Griffith To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments; Dragon, Kevin (DES); Leap, Nouk (DES) Cc: [email protected]; mgoddu; Gerry Alexander; Brooks, Allyson (DAHP); Karen Fraser; cmoore; ben helle; Vann, Nicholas (DAHP); Greg & Sheila Griffith; [email protected] Subject: LCM Comments by OHS-BHM Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 12:50:09 PM Attachments: OHS-SCC.CCDAC Comment 12.30.20.pdf

Greetings, on behalf of the Olympia Historical Society-Bigelow House Museum, I am attaching a pdf of our comment letter to the State Capitol Committee and Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee regarding the proposed Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign proposal. Feel free to contact myself at [email protected] and [email protected] should you have any questions. Also, please add these two email addresses to your contact list to receive notifications of future SCC and CCDAC meetings.

Thank you for your assistance. Greg Griffith 360-791-1493

SUMMARY COMMENTS TO STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEE JANUARY 28, 2021 MEETING By South Capitol Neighborhood Association (SCNA)

CONCLUSION The South Capitol Neighborhood Association opposes the pre-designs of the proposed buildings to replace the GA, Newhouse and Pritchard Buildings until the concerns articulated today are adequately addressed.

In our letters to the State Capitol Committee, dated October 30, 2020 and January 15, 2021, we raised the following concerns regarding West Campus development proposals: (1) the need for additional comprehensive planning for the West Capitol Campus, (2) recognition of the nexus between State projects and the City and Neighborhood, especially as it impacts transportation, security, historic preservation, and aesthetics, and (3) the necessity for ongoing stakeholder involvement throughout pre-design, design and construction phases.

We urge you to incorporate these actions into your planning process before you approve any predesign for new buildings on the West Campus. The following specific issues illustrate at this time the necessity for this action.

INADEQUATE PLANNING FOR COMPREHENSIVE WEST CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT • Incomplete analysis of future office capacity needs based upon COVID tele-work experience • Inadequate data addressing transportation/parking needs for entire Campus, including for non-employees visiting or doing business with the legislature. Current parking lot proposed at Pro-Arts is a piecemeal approach • No process or mechanism established to address West Campus development as a whole, including consideration of 2006 Master Plan and development of an updated Comprehensive Capitol Campus Plan • No architectural oversight of designs for 3 separate buildings to ensure architectural continuity compatible with original architectural design of Wilder and White and Olmsted’s landscape plan

INADEQUATE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT • To date, SCNA was only briefed on Newhouse Pre-design shortly before it was finalized. No further consultation with SCNA has occurred. We received no response to our concerns nor outreach for further discussion. • Traffic/parking study was referenced but never provided. • Final design approval is set for February 26, 2021 (per Governor’s budget language) without adequate response or consideration of SCNA and other stakeholder input. • Closure of Water/Columbia Streets characterized by the predesign team as a benefit to the Neighborhood is based on an incorrect assumption about causes of traffic and parking issues in SCN. There has been no response to our request for further discussion. • SCNA was never consulted on replacement of GA building

We have read the letters from Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, the City of Olympia, and the Olympia Historical Society regarding West Campus building proposals. The reasons for our recommendation to oppose the current predesign for the Legislative Campus Modernization project and the replacement of the GA Building are consistent with the issues raised by these other Stakeholders.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

From: Larson, Ann (DES) To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Dragon, Kevin (DES); Frare, Bill (DES); Jamali, Majid (DES) Subject: FW: SCNA Comments to SCC Jan 28th Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:07:11 PM Attachments: SCNA Comments to SCC Jan 28 .pdf

FYI – attached is written testimony from SCNA to be included in materials. It appears that they have already been shared to SCC members.

Ann Larson § Director of Government Relations DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES www.des.wa.gov § Mobile 360.485.7145

From: Sharon Case Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 5:19 PM To: Larson, Ann (DES) Subject: FW: SCNA Comments to SCC Jan 28th Meeting

External Email

Hi Ann Attached is a document summarizing the South Capitol Neighborhood Association’s position on predesign proposals. We were hoping to use these as talking points to present during the meeting when the agenda items are being considered. However, we are asking that the attachment be included in the meeting packets, as well. Thanks, again. Sharon Case

From: Sharon Case [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 4:52 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: SCNA Comments to SCC Jan 28th Meeting

Attached is a summary of the South Capitol Neighborhood Association’s concerns regarding the predesign proposals for replacement of the Newhouse & Pritchard Buildings (Legislative Campus Modernization) and GA Building (Office of the Insurance Commissioner and Children, Youth & Families). Since raising these concerns in previous letters (October 30, 2020 and January 15, 2021), we find it necessary to oppose current pre-design recommendations until these issues are adequately addressed.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sharon Case (360-451-7686)

Cc: Rachel Newmann ; Kris Tucker ; Holly Gadbaw; Greg Klein; Holly Davies

January 22, 2021 SENT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

State Capitol Committee Washington State Department of Enterprise Services Post Office Box 41401 Olympia, Washington 98504-1401

Honorable Members of the Committee:

SUBJECT: Proposed Capitol Campus Projects

The State Capitol Campus is a treasure and a source of tremendous pride to the people of Olympia. Our hosting role as a Capital City and seat of state government brings us benefits as well as burdens, and it is in the best interest of the City and the State that we work in close partnership. For this reason, the City of Olympia is following with interest the State’s consideration of projects on the Capitol Campus that will have implications for the Olympia community, particularly the two predesigns before the SCC for approval this month.

With great respect for the challenges and complexities of meeting the facility needs of state government, we feel compelled to raise serious concerns about the current proposals and extend the following requests.

• More frequent and ongoing consultation with the City is needed, and in greater detail, especially regarding impacts to roadways, circulation, traffic, parking, utilities, views, and outward-facing campus security. Recent events have proven that Campus security measures significantly impact surrounding neighborhoods and our downtown.

• Provide better opportunity for public engagement and input on the proposed projects, with a robust public outreach campaign. The public’s opportunity to comment has been limited to formal SCC and CCDAC meetings and contact with the South Capitol neighborhood. There have been no single-subject public hearings on these plans that easily represent the most sweeping changes to the West Campus since the capitol group’s construction.

• Comprehensive, long-term Master Planning for the Capitol Campus should precede major new projects, to facilitate the engagement requested above and to ensure that projects are conceived and executed with broad, forward-looking planning and support, and avoid the consequences of a piece-meal planning approach for this treasured and historic place.

State Capitol Committee January 22, 2021 Page 2

• Greater consideration should be given to preservation of the iconic, mid-century Joel Pritchard State Library Building at the heart of the campus. Among the revered sandstone group of historic buildings it is the only one designed by a Washington architect, the only one that reflects a Northwest aesthetic, and with impending loss of the GA Building, the only representative of mid-century architecture on campus. It is also notable that the building’s size, placement, and clean design result in minimal intrusion on the adjoining historic neighborhood. Every conceivable effort should be made to preserve, restore, and rehabilitate this iconic structure and avoid an irretrievable loss to our collective northwest history.

• Take time to allow for the Pandemic’s long-term impacts on State workplaces and workforces to be understood and considered. Post-pandemic norms may dramatically alter the types and quantity of state office space needed and the systems to support them, including security, transit, utilities and parking.

• Include a representative of the City of Olympia on the working group recently created to examine the authorizing statutes of the State Capitol Committee. That effort should be sensitive to the need for strong collaboration between the State Capitol Campus and the Capital City.

The City of Olympia respectfully submits these requests for your consideration before acting on predesign plans that will dramatically alter the State Capitol Campus, and our Capital community, for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Selby Mayor cc: Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee Senator Sam Hunt Representative Jessica Bateman Representative Laurie Dolan Olympia City Council Jay Burney, City Manager, City of Olympia Keith Stahley, Assistant City Manager, City of Olympia Marygrace Goddu, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Olympia Shannon Shula, President, South Capitol Neighborhood Association

From: Susan Grisham To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: [email protected]; DNR RE CPL; Wicker, Kelly (GOV); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hunt, Sam; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Councilmembers; Jay Burney; Keith Stahley; mgoddu; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Capitol Campus Projects - Public Comment Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 4:10:53 PM Attachments: 22 January 21 State Capitol Committee re Proposed Capitol Campus Projects.pdf

External Email

Good Afternoon,

Attached please find public comment submitted by Mayor Cheryl Selby in anticipation of the next State Capitol Committee meeting on January 28, 2021.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

All best,

Susan Grisham, Executive Assistant & Legislative Liaison City of Olympia |P.O. Box 1967 | Olympia WA 98507 360-753-8244 | [email protected]

Please note all correspondence is subject to public disclosure. January 12, 2021

TO: Members, State Capitol Committee Chris Liu, Director, Department of Enterprise Services

FROM: Shannon Shula, President South Capitol Neighborhood Association

RE: SCC Statutes – Concerns

The South Capitol Neighborhood Association (SCNA) values the roles of the State Capitol Committee (SCC) and Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC) in the oversight of the State Capitol Campus. Underlying this shared interest is a commitment to our responsibility as a good neighbor and involved stakeholder working in collaboration with DES, the City of Olympia and other interested groups. Careful stewardship of the buildings, monuments and landscapes encompassing the State Capitol Campus and its related activities must be given the highest priority in honor of the historic and revered significance of our State’s Capitol.

The creation of a Work Group to review and update SCC statutes offers a valuable opportunity to evaluate and build on the process for this important oversight function. With this in mind, we urge you to expand the scope of this review to include consideration of impacts of state projects to surrounding jurisdictions and neighborhoods, including but not limited to infrastructure, access issues (transportation, parking, pedestrian use), design, security and building expanse/capacity. We feel it is critical in this oversight process to recognize and address the important nexus between State Capitol properties and surrounding communities and to include these stakeholders in your work group activities.

Thank you for considering this request. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with you.

Contacts: Sharon Case ([email protected]; 360-451-7686) Kris Tucker ([email protected]; 360-951-9715)

Cc: Senator Sam Hunt ([email protected]) Representative Laurie Dolan ([email protected]) Representative Jessica Bateman ([email protected]) Mayor Cheryl Selby, City of Olympia ([email protected]) Mayor Pro-Tem Clark Gilman, City of Olympia ([email protected]) Jay Burney, Olympia City Manager ([email protected])

From: Dragon, Kevin (DES) To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: FW: Public Comment for SCC from South Capitol Neighborhood Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:48:17 PM Attachments: SCC Statutes - Concerns.january 2021.pdf

Kevin Dragon, PE PPD Program Manager

Washington State Dept. of Enterprise Services (DES) Facility Professional Services – Planning and Project Delivery Team 1500 Jefferson Street, PO Box 41476 Olympia, WA 98504-1476

360-407-7956 (Office) 360-480-2626 (Mobile) [email protected]

(He/Him/His pronouns)

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-----Original Message----- From: Rachel Newmann Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:59 PM To: Larson, Ann (DES) Subject: Public Comment for SCC from South Capitol Neighborhood

Hello Ann - Please forward the attachment with SCNA comments on the SCC Statute Workgroup to the appropriate people in DES and include in materials sent to SCC members. Thank you - Rachel January 15, 2021

TO: Members, State Capitol Committee Chris Liu, Director, Department of Enterprise Services

FROM: Shannon Shula, President South Capitol Neighborhood Association

RE: West Campus Development Proposals

This to follow up our letter of October 30, 2020 raising concerns regarding proposed West State Capitol Campus development in the Governor’s ten-year Capitol Budget Plan.

As we outlined, major buildings planned for replacing the former General Administration Building, the Newhouse Building and Pritchard Building will demonstrably change the West Campus and significantly impact both the City of Olympia and the South Capitol Neighborhood. Because of the magnitude of these construction projects, we urge that additional comprehensive planning take place to inform building and landscape design, infrastructure, access (transportation, parking & pedestrian use), long- term capacity needs and security. It would be a serious long-term mistake to move forward with a piecemeal approach.

We also urge that the sequence of design and construction phases of all of these projects, which should be closely coordinated, include ongoing stakeholder consultation throughout this process. We stress that the pre-design of the proposed building to house the Office of the Insurance Commissioner and Children, Youth & Families did not include outreach to the South Capitol Neighborhood Association and our briefing on the pre-design of Newhouse unfortunately came late in the process. The potential closures of Water and Columbia Streets, for example, should be more carefully analyzed for traffic impacts, security concerns, and parking availability—all of which impact both the neighborhood and City. These decisions should be made as a result of robust ongoing consultation with impacted entities—not with just a cursory check off of modest stakeholder outreach.

We are confident that a collaborative approach based upon long-term comprehensive planning involving the State, City and neighborhood would set the stage for a vibrant West Capitol Campus transformation that will truly enhance our Capital City. In addition, this offers an opportunity to address a set of perennial campus access issues that continue to surface, especially during legislative sessions. In your oversight capacity, we request your assistance to ensure that serious attention is devoted to the nexus between our State’s Capital City, neighborhoods surrounding the campus and these proposed new buildings.

Given the reality of tele-meetings during this Pandemic, we respectfully ask that you reference this letter and our concerns during your discussion of the Legislative Campus Modernization proposal (Newhouse Pre-Design) at your next meeting, scheduled on January 28, 2021. Representatives of SCNA will be in attendance and request the opportunity to address the State Capitol Committee briefly about our concerns. Further we urge members to take into full account these critical issues before action is taken on this agenda item.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to working with you in a collaborative spirit on our shared interests.

Contacts: Sharon Case (360-451-7686; [email protected]) Kris Tucker (360-951-9715; [email protected])

Cc: Senator Sam Hunt Representative Laurie Dolan Representative Jessica Bateman Mayor Cheryl Selby, City of Olympia Mayor Pro-Tem Clark Gilman, City of Olympia Olympia City Manager Jay Burney From: Dragon, Kevin (DES) To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: FW: SCNA follow-up Campus Modernization Final Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:47:53 PM Attachments: SCNA follow-up Campus Modernization Final.docx

Kevin Dragon, PE PPD Program Manager

Washington State Dept. of Enterprise Services (DES) Facility Professional Services – Planning and Project Delivery Team 1500 Jefferson Street, PO Box 41476 Olympia, WA 98504-1476

360-407-7956 (Office) 360-480-2626 (Mobile) [email protected]

(He/Him/His pronouns)

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Sharon Case Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:19 PM To: Larson, Ann (DES) Cc: Rachel Newmann ; Rick And Kris Tucker Subject: SCNA follow-up Campus Modernization Final

This message has originated from an External Source. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Contact your desktop support or IT security staff for assistance and to report suspicious messages. Hello Ann Attached is a letter (in memo form) from the South Capitol Neighborhood Association to the SCC. Could you please ensure that it will be included in the members’ packets for the upcoming January 28, 2021 meeting. Thanks so much for all your help. Best, Sharon Case From: Courtney Nevitt To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: State Capitol Committee January 28: Public Comment re George Bush Monument Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:31:52 PM

External Email

Hello, I offer the following public comment regarding agenda item “Proposed Minor Works Monument for George Bush”

“I would like to express my strong support for a plaque on the Capitol Campus dedicated to the contributions of Black pioneer George Bush and his family. Mr. Bush helped found the first (non indigenous) American settlement in Washington State. The facts of Mr. Bush’s migration to Washington State illuminate and celebrate the common values of freedom, community and human dignity.

The story of George Bush is not well known. This monument will inspire Washington residents as well as visitors from other states and nations to learn about early Washington State Black American pioneers seeking freedom from racial discrimination and prejudice. The proposal for the monument is citizen-driven and has the enthusiastic support of many community members and leaders. It will be an important and valuable addition to the Capitol Campus.”

Thank you,

Courtney Nevitt 1513 Columbia St SW Olympia, Wa 98501 360-280-4957 [email protected]

Sent from my iPad From: Marygrace Goddu To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 10:01:29 PM

External Email

Public Comment submitted electronically re: matters before the State Capitol Committee at their meeting of January 28, 2021

January 25, 2021

State Capitol Committee Olympia, Washington

Dear State Capitol Committee Members:

The significant decisions before you in the January 28 meeting occur against the backdrop of discussion over nearly two years of State Capitol Committee (SCC) meetings, since March of 2019, regarding the authority of the SCC. In these discussions SCC members as well as state agency staff have expressed frustration and called for clarifying the processes and authorities of the SCC and CCDAC, and clarifying Legislative and state agency involvement in Capitol Campus decision-making. Troubling inconsistencies in project initiation, review, and decision-making have been pointed out in these meetings, and as Committee Chair, Lt. Governor Habib in particular called for greater engagement of the SCC in guiding and influencing Capitol Campus decisions.

That discussion is ongoing and remains unresolved.

During this same period, the two “Preferred Predesigns” now before the SCC for approval have evolved through critical planning stages and decision points without the Committee’s full engagement. They are now presented for your approval without the Committee having considered other alternatives that were studied, and in the case of the historic and iconic State Library Building, without second opinion on critical technical conclusions, and without professional historic preservation consultation.

I urge you to set aside affirmative action on the preferred alternatives because the process for review and consideration has been flawed and remains incomplete:

1. The “Preferred Alternatives” have been selected without SCC consideration of other alternatives. When and why were other studied options removed from consideration? They include options of a single building for both the House and Senate; creating a visitor center at the Pritchard site; variations on proposed parking solutions, and more.

2. Selection of future tenants in a building on the GA site was Legislatively directed without SCC consideration. What other options might be important to consider for this precious and pivotal site?

3. Failure to consult with the Capitol Conservator and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation until October 2020 has resulted in “preferred alternatives” that fail to follow State laws pertaining to treatment of State Capitol Public & Historic Properties (RCW 79.24.700-730).

4. Lack of opportunity for public comment. When the SCC review is limited, the public opportunity to stay informed is even further compromised. Public comment has typically been limited to the end of SCC and CCDAC meetings after committee deliberations have been completed. Remote meetings have curtailed even that practice, and emailed comments are summarized by staff, so the public is denied the benefit of hearing comments from others. Public comments are not included in published meeting minutes.

Excerpts from the available published SCC Meeting Minutes support the points above and are appended below.

The pre-designs now under consideration have far-reaching consequences and will irreversibly alter our historic Capitol buildings and grounds. It is imperative that they be thoughtfully and thoroughly considered with the benefit of long-term perspective, many informed points of view, and balanced decision-making.

Thank you for your consideration, and for your stewardship of our State Capitol Campus.

Yours,

Marygrace Goddu Citizen of Olympia [email protected] 360.701.3186

Excerpts from State Capitol Committee Minutes: March 14, 2019 - DES reported to the SCC that the agency was seeking House and Senate direction on three pre-design options for Newhouse Building Replacement.

“Chair Habib questioned whether the purpose of the SCC and the CCDAC is to provide guidance to legislators rather than providing three options without some level of filtered guidance and recommendation from the SCC and the CCDAC.”

DES Assistant Director Bill Frare responded that this project is being treated differently since the Legislature had allocated the funding and is the proposed tenant.

“Chair Habib added that he presumes that is why he is a member of the committee. As his role is as the President of the Senate, it is unclear as to why the project would be treated differently. Additionally, several members of the CCDAC are legislators. The Legislature is represented on both committees. It seems that the project skipped both the CCDAC and the SCC. From a best practices perspective, a public accountability perspective, and frankly from keeping House and Senate from fighting perspective, to have guidance from the statutory committees would be preferable because it is why the committees were established. Guidance should be sought similar to any other executive agency. It appears odd that the committees were bypassed.” (underline added.)

Assistant Director Frare advised that the committee would have another opportunity to comment on the process as the predesign is finalized. (The SCC did not see the project again until October 15th 2020, however, when only the “preferred alternatives” were shared.)

July 11, 2019 - Meeting featured a “demonstrative episode” (Lt. Gov Habib’s characterization) when it was understood by the SCC they were being asked to approve a preferred predesign for construction of an L&I Training Center without having seen the other predesign options.

September 19, 2019 SCC, CCDAC and DES Roundtable – “Many of the recent projects speak to a lack of interplay and clarity between DES, OFM/Governor’s Office, Legislature, CCDAC, and the SCC. He (Lt. Gov Habib) asked for feedback on an optimal way that interplay should occur.”

December 12, 2019 - Lt Gov Habib opened discussion about the selection, without SCC consultation, of agencies to occupy a GA Building replacement:

“The committee is comprised of four statewide elected officials, and although similar to the Legislature, includes elected officials with public credibility and oversight responsibility of the Capitol Campus. Should there be a future similar question (…), approaching the SCC to present the proposal (...) should be considered as an option. That scenario would appear to be more useful than the committee typically receiving informational updates. (...)the discussion raises the question of why it was not included as a debate topic for the roundtable to explore and whether that particular process is an appropriate path because of the potential of other interested agency heads not aware of the proposal. Ms. Wicker offered that more work on the topic is warranted as there have been many discussions by the committee on the needs on the campus, the Legislature, and other entities.”

March 2020 SCC meeting cancelled June 2020 SCC meeting cancelled

August 10, 2020 - Newhouse Building Replacement not on SCC agenda

October 15, 2020 - “Preferred Alternatives” presented for LCM and OIC/DCYF predesigns From: Patrick Stickney To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: No surface parking Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:24:30 PM

External Email

Dear State Capitol Campus Committee:

As an Olympia resident and state employee, I am writing personally in opposition to some of the proposals before you, and support for some others. First, my support: the General Administration Building should definitely be demolished and redesigned. I understand if the same has to happen to the Pritchard Library, but believe that as many attempts as possible should be made to preserve this building.

I am writing to oppose all plans to construct surface parking. This is a terrible use of land, and the state should be exploring creative and productive ways to use all of it. If additional parking is required, it should be done through increasing the capacity of the proposed parking garage or incorporating parking into the new buildings to be constructed.

Developments like Strawberry Square in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania should serve as an example to possibilities for the state. This development incorporates state offices and other uses to create unified spaces for the state government and broader community. More surface parking would be a detriment to the community and contrary to the goal of the state in reducing climate change.

Please reconsider. Thank you.

Sincerely, Patrick Stickney From: Tamara Black To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Proposed changes to Capitol campus Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:04:52 PM

External Email

I am against demolishment of the beautiful state library building, designed by a noted modernist architect. I am also against adding 4 surface parking lots. A single multi-level garage would reduce the impact of impermeable surfaces, important to reduce the negative effects of storm water on wildlife habitat, particularly for fish populations. These proposed actions are not in alignment with our preservation and conservation values in Olympia, and in the state of Washington.

Sent from my iPad From: John Saunders To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Courtney Nevitt Subject: State Capitol Committee January 28 meeting, public comment Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:25:54 PM

External Email

I would like to provide the following comments on Item 9 of the State Capitol Committee January 28 meeting, titled "Proposed Minor Works Monument for George Bush”

"I strongly support the proposed monument to George Bush, the first Black pioneer to Washington Territory and his son William Owen Bush.

This proposal results from the work of many citizens over the last year who seek greater recognition and understanding of the critical role Mr. Bush played in establishing the American territory north of the Columbia river even while facing racial discrimination. The citizen-led initiative to create this monument received formal endorsements from the Olympia Historical Society-Bigelow House Museum, the Olympia Tumwater Foundation, and the Northwest chapter of the Orego-California Trails Association. The initiative is now being formally supported by the Washington State Historical Society." thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this matter. best regards,

John O. Saunders 301 18th Ave SE Olympia, WA 98501 [email protected] M 360-259-0288 January 26, 2021

State Capitol Committee c/o Mr. Kevin Dragon WA State Department of Enterprise Services [email protected]

Re: Legislative Campus Modernization

Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide comments to the State Capitol Committee regarding the Legislative Campus Modernization (LCM) Predesign project. I’m writing as a concerned citizen, architect, and landscape architect who was involved with the planning and design for the Washington State Capitol Campus in various capacities for almost a decade. I was the lead planner and primary author of the 2009 West Capitol Campus Historic Landscape Preservation Master Plan. I subsequently served as part of the design team for the landscaping, drainage, and utilities improvements along Sid Snyder Avenue, and I was an uncited team resource for the 2017 Development Study by Schacht Aslani and Mithun. I have led community walking tours at the Capitol, and as a Board Member for Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks, I participated in the development of the Guide to the Olmsted Legacy at the Washington State Capitol, a walking tour brochure to help visitors enjoy and learn about the Capitol as one of the Olmsted Brothers’ master works. I am also a former member of the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC).

I greatly appreciate the challenges of intervening within the historic West Capitol Campus, a living legacy and iconic center of our State governance. In reviewing meeting minutes and presentation materials from the December 5th CCDAC meeting, I was impressed by the content, the questions, and the discussion surrounding the LCM. However, I was also concerned about the extent of the proposed changes to the historic Capitol Campus that are under consideration without a more robust public process and layered, comprehensive update to the 2006 Master Plan for the Capitol of the State of Washington. Following are my comments:

Historic Landscape Character: In 2016-2017, CCDAC recognized that a comprehensive update to the 2006 Master Plan was needed, and in the absence of adequate funding, CCDAC sought to build momentum for an updated plan by undertaking a series of studies and charettes regarding the future shape of the campus. At the forefront of the explorations were considerations about the overall campus character and ways in which the growth of the campus could honor the rich heritage while improving modern function. Foundational aspects to the planning studies included recognition and enhancement of campus gateways, views, edges, arrival, circulation, and visitor experience. The studies drew upon previous master planning and sub-area planning efforts that all came to a similar conclusion – that the south edge of the historic West Capitol Campus, south of Sid Snyder Avenue and between Capitol Way and Water Street SW, was an ideal development site to help frame the great lawn and reinforce the gateway to the Campus and the Capitol Group of Buildings. Conversely, the Preferred Alternative within the LCM depicts a preponderance of surface parking on this prime development site, rather than a careful composition of enduring buildings to help frame the Capitol and the historic, Olmsted Brothers landscape.

Surface Parking as Foreground: The historic correspondence of the Olmsted Brothers during their design for the Capitol Campus provides clear guidance on their intended treatment for parking. They advocated against parking directly adjacent to buildings and preferred to obscure parking or situate parking underground, however, over the years, parking has encroached upon and gradually begun to dominate the campus. The 2009 Historic Landscape Preservation Master Plan highlighted the importance of actions to help synthesize parking strategies, commute trip reduction efforts, campus transportation, and bike and pedestrian experiences with every project, with the ultimate intent of returning some of the most civic aspects of the State to people, rather than cars, and to improve safety and security. The proposed LCM directly contradicts this intent with a large field of surface parking as a prominent foreground, a frame, and a gateway to some of the most important historic resources in the State. While I understand the need for convenient access to the Capitol for legislators and staff, this perpetuation of the prioritization of single occupancy vehicles sets a low standard for 21st C. development, moves us backward in terms of sustainability, and amounts to an important missed opportunity to strengthen the overall campus character.

Big Changes Warrant Big Vision There are planning efforts underway for the GA site, the Pro-Arts site, the old visitor center, the Ayer Duplex, the Carlyon House, the Newhouse Building, and the Pritchard Building. While there is a clear need for new space, the extent of the proposed interventions throughout the Capitol Campus warrant a more comprehensive examination of the campus, as a whole – a multi-layered approach that includes campus-wide security, circulation, utilities, visitor service needs, landscape, preservation, etc. A comprehensive update to the 2006 Campus Master Plan, along with a robust public engagement process, would help build consensus, highlight priorities for immediate action, and ensure that each phase of implementation would contribute toward the fulfillment of the long-term campus vision.

In summary, I appreciate the complexity of advancing the use and function of a modern center of governance while stewarding irreplaceable cultural resources of state and national significance. It is because our State Capitol is such a vital, dynamic place that I advocate for expanding the conversations and considerations to include the additional layers that a full master plan process would allow, as well as a more concerted, promoted, inclusive public engagement process.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to provide these comments for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can help in any way.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Olmsted, AIA, ASLA, LEED AP BD+C Architect and Landscape Architect [email protected] (206) 351-5924

Cc: Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks Marygrace Goddu

From: Susan Olmsted To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Comments Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:26:13 PM Attachments: 2021-01-26 Capitol-Campus-Advocacy.pdf

External Email

Please see my attached comments regarding the Legislative Campus Modernization project. I’m thankful for the opportunity to provide these comments for consideration by the SCC and CCDAC, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can help in any way.

Best,

Susan Olmsted, AIA, ASLA, LEED AP BD+C Architect + Landscape Architect 206.351.5924

From: [email protected] To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: OIC DCYF Predesign public comments Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:32:13 PM

External Email

Members of the State Capitol Committee:

I am writing to provide the following public comments on the OIC DCYF Predesign/Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee/November 5, 2020 presentation and January 7, 2021 draft minutes.

The importance of life safety and the need for Legislative office space are clear.

The scope of change to the capitol campus is substantial—demolishing seven buildings, constructing four buildings, and building three surface parking lots. The Master Plan for the Capitol Campus, having not had a comprehensive update in 15 years (since 2006) is not equipped to effectively guide this scale of change to the capitol campus.

Implementation of the proposed work will substantially and permanently change the visual and physical character of the capitol campus. Proposed work will exist within the context of and impact the visual character of Wilder and White’s capitol group design and the Olmsted Brother’s West Capitol Campus landscape design without an articulated vision for the architectural character of the capitol campus.

Programming is critical, but it should not lead the discussion of building and surface parking compatibility with the spatial organization, circulation, and design of the capitol campus. Although individual buildings are acknowledged as historic, there is no recognition of the National Register of Historic Places Washington State Capitol historic district, inclusive the historic Olmsted Brothers designed landscape, and no discussion of how historic spatial organization and circulation patterns of the capitol campus (both west and east) inform the placement of new development.

Compatible new development would greatly benefit from: The early consideration of the regulatory process requirements stemming from Executive Order 0505, Recognition of the historic landscape and National Register of Historic Places Washington State Capitol historic district, Undertaking a comprehensive update to the Capitol Campus Master Plan ahead of design work for new construction to articulate a vision for the architectural character of the capitol campus, and, Use of the 1996 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Spencer Howard

From: ken house To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments; [email protected]; DNR RE CPL; Wicker, Kelly (GOV); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hunt, Sam; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Demolition of the Pritchard and Associated Buildings Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 7:23:58 PM

External Email

State Capitol Committee,

My name is Ken House and I am a resident of Olympia and incidentally a member of the City of Olympia Historic Commission, the City's historic preservation review committee. I am writing today as a lifelong citizen of the State and a longtime resident of Olympia, not a City Commission member.

I strongly oppose the proposed demolition of the Pritchard Building. It is the most important example of modern architecture in the City of Olympia, probably one of the most important examples in the State as well as listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is certainly one of the most architecturally important modern public buildings in the State and possibly the nation. I can assure you that if the State requests a demolition permit from the City of Olympia for this building and the permit is reviewed by the Historic Commission I will vote to deny. I hope that you respect your role as a resident of the City and abide by City procedures and regulations not expecting to be treated as if you are somehow above that. In addition, I hope a City representative will be included in future discussions and planning.

Destruction of this work of art would be an irreplaceable loss to the State and a stain on State government. It was designed by a master architect living in Washington State and reflects a Northwest based design, not the pseudo classical temple style imported from Greece, Rome or Europe in gener. The idea that it can not be adapted for other uses is only a reflection of a lack of creativity, of study and of imagination. Its preservation should be a good example of retrofitting rather than a bad example of poor planning. In short, the proposed demolition is an example of expedient, short sighted thinking at best. I expect it would be more economical to maintain the exterior of the Pritchard Building and modify the interior than demolish and build a new building in its place. It was specifically designed to fit in with the Wilder and White group of buildings. It is an example of intentional design, not the notion that we need more office space so tear down and throw something up in its place. State government should lead by example in the field of historic preservation as in all other endeavors within the State. Given what we are learning about the need, or lack of need, for office space as a result of the COVID pandemic, do you even really know you need more fixed office space? In addition, I read that additional street level parking will be created as part of the overall plan, that seems as logical as heating with coal instead of solar power in an age when transit, ride sharing and ride reduction should be the norm not exception. Paving the West Campus seems far less than ideal and a throwback to a past idea reflecting little concern for the environment, aesthetics and contemporary reality. Possibly legislators and staff might need to walk a bit to their workplaces, share rides or take a shuttle.

The building is immediately adjacent to the most significant historic preservation district in the City. The demolition of the building and its replacement by an everyday contemporary structure will have a direct impact on that historic district. Further, the building is symmetrical with the Capitol and Supreme Court and it is one of the most architecturally significant structures on the Capitol campus.

A basic tenant of environmental preservation is that the most sustainable building is the one that is already built. To argue that a replacement structure will meet various green standards ignores the consequences of the destruction of the preceding building and all the embodied carbon that it contains.

Not only is the Pritchard Building of significance. The Newhouse Building and the so called "Press Houses" have architectural and historical importance. As does, frankly the GA Building. I have read the letter sent by your own Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. It speaks to the importance of these structures. I hope that you heed the letters from the City of Olympia and the Olympia Historical Society and take a more deliberate and reasoned approach to your trust as guardians of the Capitol campus buildings.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ken House Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Pope, Leslie (ARTS) Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:41 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments; Dragon, Kevin (DES) Cc: Hanan, Karen (ARTS); West, Terry (ARTS); Sweney, Mike (ARTS); Huber, Janae (ARTS) Subject: comments for Legislative Campus Modernization (LCM) Predesign (DES Project No. 18-527) Attachments: ArtsWA Letter to SCC - Capitol Campus Modernization.pdf

Kevin‐ Please forward this letter from Karen Hanan, Washington State Arts Commission (ArtsWA) Executive Director, to the appropriate folks for public comment on this project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Leslie Pope Executive Assistant/HR Liaison [email protected] T: 360-252-9983 | F: 360-586-5351 Pronouns: She/Her

ArtsWA | Washington State Arts Commission PO Box 42675 Olympia, WA 98504-2675 arts.wa.gov | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube Explore the State Art Collection’s Newest Artworks at K‐12 public schools, community colleges, universities, and state buildings via My Public Art Portal.

STATE OF WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION

711 Capitol Way S, Suite 600, PO Box 42675 Olympia, WA 98504-2675 (360) 753-3860 • FAX (360) 586-5351

January 26, 2021

State Capitol Committee c/o Kevin Dragon PPD Program Manager Washington State Department of Enterprise Services By email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Re: Legislative Campus Modernization (LCM) Predesign (DES Project No. 18-527)

Dear members of the State Capitol Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed options for the Capitol Campus Modernization. The Washington State Arts Commission (ArtsWA) understands the need to address campus spaces and their changes of use over time. Our Capitol is a dynamic, thriving campus and one that we hope to see adapted with careful stewardship, creativity, and sensitivity to our State’s history and future. We write as advisors to DES on public and historic facilities (RCW79.24.720). The focus of our comments is on the significant artworks integrated into the Pritchard Building. The potential demolition or alteration of the former State Library would have inalterable impacts on important, early artwork commissions in our State. Those artworks are integral to the architectural expression and enhance the visitor experience and broader identity of the Pritchard Building. James FitzGerald’s tile mural defines the entryway. Mark Tobey’s large-scale painting carries visitors through the building’s office corridor and is a unique and significant artwork by one of our region’s most important 20th century artists. And, Kenneth Callahan’s 170-foot-long-mural in the Washington Room depicts scenes from the history of our State with Callahan’s signature, moody painting style and tonal qualities. Each of the artists represents a unique Pacific Northwest voice within the broader Modernist movement. Like the Jean Cory Beall tile mural now located in the Helen Sommers Building, each of these artists and artworks reflect the values of our State during the middle of the 20th century. And, like the Cory Beal mural, demolition or modifications to the building that is their home will change the artwork, the artist’s intent, and the artwork’s impact. Those considerations and provisions for the artwork’s removal, preservation, and re-siting must be included in any campus modernization plans. We look forward to working with DES as this planning process moves forward. Sincerely,

Karen Hanan Executive Director, ArtsWA

Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Andrea Pareigis Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:01 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Capitol Campus Plans

External Email

State Capitol Committee

I am writing in concern over the proposed massive changes to our capitol campus. While I recognize that updates need to be made, I fear that the current plans rush into an incomplete short term vision that does not take into consideration both historic preservation and modern needs.

All of the buildings slated for demolition have historic significance, but none more than the Pritchard Library. The Pritchard building is Washington’s premier example of mid century architecture. Paul Thiry took great care in his design to provide a functioning library, mirror already placed capitol campus architecture, and create space to showcase local art. A loss of this building would be a great loss to Washingtonians today and of further generations.

My understanding of campus development needs are for primarily additional parking and office spaces. This past year every environment has seen drastic changes in how business is conducted. One of the most notable changes is the increase in e-commuting and working at home. Most business leaders are accepting and planning on this trend to continue past the pandemic. Projecting that offices and therefore parking for offices are on a downward trend, now would be an inopportune time to plan on constructing more than is needed. While the campus needs to be updated, those updates should be looking towards future needs and consider trends such as ecommuting, public transit, and ridesharing.

Lastly I would like to bring to attention one of the biggest struggles or our time, climate change. Sustainability is key in lowering our carbon footprint. The most ecological building is one that is already there. I would like to see this committee look towards rehabilitating and repurposing current structures before tearing down and starting over.

Washingtonians are innovative and creative. I trust that a solution can be found that satisfies future needs, historic preservation and character, and ecological responsibility.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Andrea Pareigis

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Holly Davies Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:20 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: comment for Jan 28th meeting Attachments: Davies comments to SCC Jan 28 2021.docx

External Email My comments to the SCC for the Jan 28th, 2021 meeting are attached.

Regards, Holly Davies

1 Honorable Members of the State Capitol Committee:

First, I request that this committee accept public comment before a decision is made, preferably oral comments as other committees do.

You are considering pre-designs for two major construction projects with proposed changes to the Capitol Campus that will significantly impact historic buildings and the City of Olympia. I agree with the concerns expressed in the comment letters from the City of Olympia, State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, South Capitol Neighborhood Association, and Olympia Historical Society/Bigelow House Museum. The State has not engaged in outreach appropriate to the size and impact of the proposed changes and has not given adequate consideration to adaptive re-use to avoid demolition. Adaptive reuse both preserves historic structures and is more sustainable than demolishing existing buildings. Retrofitting our existing buildings is an important part of our actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. I urge you to increase engagement with the public, update the Master Plan for the Capitol Campus, and consider alternatives to demolition, especially for the Pritchard Library. The two proposed projects would demolish seven historic buildings and construct new buildings along with surface parking, altering the south edge of the campus from Capitol Way to the Capitol Lake bluff and constructing a parking garage on 11th. This includes taking a street from the city for secure parking. In addition to the loss of historic buildings, the changes to the spatial relationships will impact how we see the campus, access to the campus, and its relationship to our neighborhoods. I am particularly concerned about the proposed demolition of the Joel M. Pritchard Library Building, our State’s most important public mid-century building. The Library stands out from the other buildings slated for demolition because of its architect, its architecture, and its artwork. It was designed by award winning Washington architect Paul Thiry to join the grouping of classical sandstone buildings in a mid-century northwest style. The artwork commissioned for the building showcases Pacific Northwest artists. Every conceivable effort should be made to preserve, restore, and rehabilitate this iconic structure. This would be in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties that are called out in RCW 79.24. Any proposal to modernize our Capitol Campus deserves wider engagement with Washingtonians. Proposals must take into account a long-term plan for the campus to meet the needs of our state government while also preserving our heritage and using our resources sustainably. Sincerely, Holly Davies Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Michael Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:14 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Comment on State Capitol Committee Meeting, Agenda item 7

External Email

Dear State Capitol Committee members,

I would like to express my opposition to the findings presented to you by DES/Mithun regarding the Washington State Library Building and particularly the preferred alternative to demolish the historic building. Since comments must be submitted prior to the presentation tomorrow I cannot on the details provided to you by the project team but I am very familiar with the building, its condition (and condition issues) and its merits as an important landmark listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

For more than a decade I had the privilege to serve as the Capitol Campus Conservator and along with our Artifacts team authored Historic Structure Reports for all of the buildings in the historic west campus Capitol Group and Olmsted grounds. We served during the Nisqually earthquake and subsequently oversaw repairs and seismic upgrades to all of the campus historic structures except the State Pritchard Library which suffered remarkably little damage.

I was alarmed to hear of plans to potentially demolish the 1958 Library Building, an architectural masterpiece by Paul Thiry and the only building in the historic capitol group designed by a Washington State architect. Its thoughtful placement in the campus, modern reference to the classical design of the Legislative Building and welcoming formality make it an indispensable phrase in the state capitol narrative. While it may not perfectly accommodate the urgent need for office space, its potential for public use, visitor interpretation and assembly present a field of opportunities for the future.

The conclusions in the predesign study are largely blind to the historic preservation values that should guide modifications to the west capitol campus and protect historic features and fabric. The predesign process thus far has skirted public comment and agency consultation requirements and neglected courtesies to those of us who treasure the Capitol and its story. The State Library Building should not be discarded easily and its future should not be measured by its suitability as an office building.

Full copy of Washington State Library Historic Structure Report

1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/anzzwn41wesa731/HSR_WashingtonStateLibrary.pdf?dl=0

Respectfully,

Michael Sullivan

Michael Sean Sullivan Public History+Historic Preservation+Architectural Conservation

ARTIFACTS‐INC.COM

2 From: Al Ralston To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Comment Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:04:33 AM

External Email

Honorable Capitol Committee Members,

My name is Al Ralston and I am a long time lobbyist/legislative staff member and have been engaged with issue development on the Capitol Campus for 49 years. I’m also an appointed member of the Capitol Furnishings Preservation Committee and have had a long time interest in making our State Capitol accessible to our Washingtonians and a place where they can participate in our democracy. I want to raise a strong concern about the Legislative Campus Modernization plans before you today. I’m concerned that there appears to be a gap in planning for adequate space for our public visitors who choose to visit our Capitol. The planned loss of the Joel Pritchard building with no public space with close proximity to the Cherberg, O’Brien and Legislative Buildings is more than unfortunate. The Pritchard Building is the perfect meeting site for our citizens when they come to Olympia during the legislative session or to visit as tourists the home of democracy in Washington State. The Pritchard Building is also an important piece of architecture and as such should be spared from removal. As I have attempted to preserve along with my fellow Capitol Furnishing Preservation Committee Members, the artifacts of our Capitols history, I too feel it is important to preserve the Pritchard Building.

Our Capitol does need to expand to accommodate future growth. The press buildings and old GA Building are relics which warrant removal but the Pritchard Building, I believe , is the exception to the plan before you. It has a purpose for our future visitors because of its location and it has an historical significance as a contributor to our Capitols history every bit as much as an original desk in the Lt. Governors office or a relics display in the office of The Secretary of State. I ask that you make an exception for the Pritchard Building as you move forward with your plans to modernize the Washington State Capitol Campus. Many thanks for your consideration of my request!

Al Ralston

Sent from my iPad Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Judith Oliver Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:47 AM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Pritchard Building

External Email

Dear Committee Members, Today I heard that the Pritchard Building is being considered for demolition. I strongly object to its demolition. The building houses highly significant historical art works from Washington and Pacific Northwestern artists. It would be very irresponsible to allow these art works to be damaged or destroyed if the building is demolished. Please consider alternatives. Sincerely, Judith Oliver 3019 36th Ave. NE Olympia, WA 98506 [email protected] 360‐754‐3739

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Jennifer Mortensen Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:16 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: DOCOMOMO US/WEWA; mgoddu; [email protected]; Vann, Nicholas (DAHP); [email protected] Subject: Capitol Campus Predesign Comments Attachments: WA Trust Comments - SCC Meeting - Jan 28.pdf

External Email

Hello,

Attached please find comments from the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation to the State Capitol Committee regarding the Legislative Capitol Campus Predesign Study, particularly the Pritchard Building, in advance of their meeting on January 28, 2021.

I will also be virtually attending the meeting tomorrow and would welcome the chance to make verbal comments, if permitted.

Thank you,

Jennifer (Jay) Mortensen | Outreach Director she / her / hers

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 1204 Minor Avenue | Seattle, WA 98101 206-462-2999 (d) | o: 206-624-9449 (o) preservewa.org

1 January 27, 2021

State Capitol Committee [sent via electronic mail] [email protected] Department of Enterprise Services PO Box 41401 Olympia, WA 98504-1401

Re: Legislative Capitol Campus Modernization - Predesign Study

Dear State Capitol Committee:

I am writing on behalf of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation in response to predesign proposals being considered for the Washington State Capitol Campus. The Washington Trust is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the places that matter in Washington State and to promoting sustainable and economically viable communities through historic preservation. We are Washington’s only statewide nonprofit advocacy organization working to build a collective ethic that preserves historic places through education, collaboration, and stewardship.

We respectfully request that the State Capitol Committee (SCC) delay approving the predesign proposals until more evaluation and consultation can take place. The Washington Trust is concerned that proper procedures have not been followed, particularly in reference to Executive Order 05-05 and RCW 79.24. The Washington Trust is also concerned about the lack of involvement on the part of the Capitol Conservator throughout the predesign process.

The Washington Trust is particularly interested in the preservation of the Pritchard Library building due to its high level of architectural significance. It is one of Washington’s most important mid-century works of public architecture and was designed by renown Northwest architect, Paul Thiry. According to RCW 79.24.720, the Secretary of Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties applies to the Pritchard Library, along with all National Register listed campus buildings and especially those directly identified as “historic facilities” in RCW 79.24.710. We are concerned the SOI Standards have not be sufficiently addressed in this process and alternatives that preserve the historically designated campus buildings have not be adequately explored.

In addition to historic preservation, we are also concerned about the climate change implications of significant demolition on the Capitol Campus. While the need for new office space is certainly a legitimate one that must be addressed, there should be a concerted effort to reuse existing buildings where possible, which will dramatically reduce both the amount of new carbon released through construction and the amount

STIMSON-GREEN MANSION, 1204 MINOR AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 T 206-624-9449 F 206-624-2410 | preservewa.org State Capitol Committee January 27, 2021 Page 2

of embodied carbon in demolished buildings being lost and sent to landfills. With Governor Inlsee’s focus on climate issues, the State should be a leader in innovative climate solutions, such as finding creative and compatible uses for historically and architecturally significant buildings.

And finally, it is important that major capital projects on the Capitol Campus be evaluated through long-term comprehensive master planning. This process helps facilitate both consultation with appropriate parties as well as meaningful public engagement. It is our understanding that the Capitol Campus Master Plan has not undergone a comprehensive update since 2006.

We look forward to the opportunity to continue conversations about these important issues.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mortensen Outreach Director

CC: Nicholas Vann, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Alex Rolluda, Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee Eugenia Woo & Michelle Sadlier, Docomomo WEWA Marygrace Goddu, Historic Preservation Office, City of Olympia Olympia Heritage Commission Olympia Historical Society-Bigelow House Museum Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Jessica Bieber Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:19 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Pre-Design - Public Comment

External Email

Good Afternoon,

I am a local architectural associate and a member of the Heritage Commission. I am very passionate about the revitalization of our beautiful city while retaining and respecting it’s history. Some of my favorite after work walks and lunch breaks have been around the capitol campus, and it is both due to the walkability as well as the richness of its history.

I am respectful of the need of parking and expansion of space for legislative workers. But I am saddened by the disregard to really study the option of adaptive-reuse of some of the most historically significant buildings in Olympia. It is the easiest solution to replace these buildings with surface parking lots, but it is much more important and respectful to study how we can save these buildings or implement them in a new design that I understand is very much needed.

I would just like to have seen an alternative study to know that this was thought through and there really are no possibilities of expansion/parking otherwise. Most of these buildings if not all are on the historic register for a reason, and we must protect them.

Thank you for your time, Jessica

Jessica Bieber, Architectural Associate

THOMAS ARCHITECTURE STUDIOS 525 Columbia Street SW I Olympia, WA 360.915.8775 I www.tasolympia.com

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Donnie Hull Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:26 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Pre-design

External Email

The amount of new surface parking is alarming, and will surely affect the Campus’ park-like feel. Please consider other alternatives.

Donnie Hull, Architectural Associate

THOMAS ARCHITECTURE STUDIOS 525 Columbia Street SW I Olympia, WA 360.915.8775 I www.tasolympia.com

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:05 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Pritchard Building demolition

External Email

To the SCC: It is alarming to learn that the Pritchard Building and others are under consideration for demolition in favor of a new office building and surface parking. The mid-century architecture of the Pritchard Building compliments the State Capitol and its removal would be a serious loss.

More surface parking proposed would, among other things, create more space for protests further risking damage to our treasured Capitol Buildings. It seems likely that a proposed new office building would need to be tall in order to have the space to be cost effective. This would compete with the glory of the Capitol, the crowning achievement of the architectural style known as the American Renaissance.

The proposal before you is little known and deserves much more public review. Please reject or postpone.

With best wishes, Sue Lean

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: c o n n i e Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:21 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Changes to Capitol Campus

External Email

January 27, 2020

To members of the State Capitol Committee,

As a neighbor to the campus, I hope the committee will re-consider the proposed demolition of so many buildings for the development of more office space and parking. Unless buildings are deemed unsafe, repurposing is a more sustainable approach.

There has been very limited outreach and opportunity for comment. As a small business and historic building owner of 25 years downtown, I am surprised and disappointed that the business community has not been included in the discussion as it is adjacent to the campus.

These proposed changes appear to be the biggest development change to the campus in 100 years. That is significant and impactful for many generations so as much input from as many Washingtonians as possible should be a priority.

Thank you also for re-considering the need for parking and office space as we all navigate the new territories of telework. Our state is facing many, many dire environmental and economic challenges and office space does not appear to be one of them.

The Pritchard Library is a wonderful example of historic PNW mid-century architecture. It should be preserved. If buildings like the press houses can be moved and remain housing, that should happen instead of demolition.

Thank you for the opportunity to reach more groups for input with interest and investment in the cultural integrity of the Washington State Capitol campus. We are an extremely fortunate community to have this inviting, pedestrian-friendly, architecturally rich and parklike environment centrally located in our city. Please include more people in the process of planning such significant and irreversible changes.

Sincerely,

Connie Phegley

1 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Dragon, Kevin (DES) Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:47 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Leap, Nouk (DES) Subject: RE: DES meeting 1/28/2021 Public comments regarding fate of historic buildings on the Capital Campus

Forwarded to DES SCC‐CCDAC Public Comment email account.

From: Leap, Nouk (DES) Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:28 PM To: Dragon, Kevin (DES) Subject: FW: DES meeting 1/28/2021 Public comments regarding fate of historic buildings on the Capital Campus

Kevin, This email from Dawn Hooper to my email.

Thanks. Nouk Leap PO Box 41476 – Olympia, WA 98504-1480 360-407-9414

From: dh Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:22 PM To: Leap, Nouk (DES) Subject: DES meeting 1/28/2021 Public comments regarding fate of historic buildings on the Capital Campus

External Email

To whom it may concern, regarding discussion or decision items planned for the 1/28/2021 agenda.

Please accept my public comment regarding redevelopment and/or redesign of historic buildings located on the capital campus in Olympia.

Thank you for the thought and expertise that you bring to bear. We greatly admire your work and, as frequent visitors, so appreciate the history and beauty of the capital campus. Important to this history is the "sense of history" experienced by the retention and maintenance of our historic buildings and their contents - even the smallest among them. I'd like to make a few comments for your consideration. I learned of this opportunity to comment only this afternoon. I was unable to find a notice of a formal public comment period or a record of the proposal regarding this major design/redevelopment.

1 I would like to know more about the comprehensive planning process that was used -- or, if this is a targeted project. If it is a targeted project, this may be a very good time to suspend any action that would harm or demolish the buildings, remove their historic content or impair their surrounding setting until it can be included in a comprehensive planning effort.

I request that future comment periods engage and involve the immediate neighborhood and also invite others such as the neighboring cities/residents, and tribes to contribute to the planning by comment or other meaningful engagement. It seems especially difficult to get the word out during this year-long pandemic shutdown since we are all so separated by circumstance.

Briefly - 1. Please retain, restoring as necessary, the Pritchard House (and other significant historic buildings included in your plan) given its importance as an historic building of historic, cultural and artistic importance to Washington State and the city of Olympia, and as a part of our nation's history. The Pritchard House is of particular importance given its history - political, social, cultural (unique art history and objects of art included). I am sorry to see that the greenhouse and conservancy structures were completely removed -- I hope that you will support retention of the other structures that hold meaning and history and to look for ways to add in the missing parts of the history of this state - people and natural environment.

As a part of this discussion -- please also consider the great importance of the character of the residential capital neighborhood and how these existing (older) buildings on the capital campus are integral and significant to tying the campus and neighborhood together and as a historic and cultural district.

2. Please refrain from committing to a significant redevelopment during this time of transition in the way residents and employees teleworking and locate to accomplish their work and - due to the severe and likely long-term economic impact due to the pandemic. Waiting and including these topics in later planning processes will allow the state to make more informed and evolved decisions that can (1) include consideration of changes that are emerging due to the pandemic and, (2) consider priorities and new ideas to respond to climate change and equity. As you consider climate change in agency/state policies and planning decisions (eg, electric car stations, revisit need to expand...), here is a January 2021 panel discussion for a shift in thinking - hosted by UC Boulder (Creating a More Comfortable, Sustainable and Safer World for All) that may have some use- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQtv-OKxXpQ.

3. Perhaps unrelated but - please work to keep our historic buildings open to the public. It's important for civil society to know and experience its (our) past as we also plan for a better future(s). I hope that this can be done with newly imposed safety restrictions as recently proposed in the two gun/firearm proposed SB's that were heard this week. With that, a big thank you to those who are providing for the current protection of people and property associated with the campus.

Dawn Hooper Olympia resident