SAINT EDWARD SEMINARY LEASE COMMENTS DECEMBER 2016

Hello,

I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding St Edwards Park and the potential for the renovation of turning it into a lodge. I wanted to put my two cents in and let you know that it is very important for there to be plenty of parking for non-hotel visitors and am requesting for an underground parking structure to be required.

Even thought I am not for this renovation as I am very concerned for the wild-life. The noise, the visitors, the construction, the constant light pollution...I am sure all this new activity will affect all living things nearby, where will they go? Having grown up in Washington, and have lived here since the 70's, I have witnessed so much forest being cut down for us humans. There is not much left. St Edwards is such a special place to visit, so special that I would give up my rights to be there so as to make it a sanctuary for wildlife and not disturb them.

However, having said my peace, if there is to be a 'lodge', I do request a parking structure to make room for us visitors who like to take quiet walks in the forest.

Washington State Park Officials:

Please approve the Kevin Daniels' Firm's proposal to restore the historical and architecturally significant Seminary Building in St. Edwards Park. This proposal provides the funds to restore this beautiful building to its former glory and an economically sustainable future that park visitors can use, enjoy, and be proud of for years to come. It would be unacceptable and contrary to our State Parks' mission to adopt the recommendation of a few outspoken park neighbors who would prefer to see the Seminary Building partially torn down or continue to deteriorate just to keep the park "as is". St. Edwards Park belongs to all the citizens of Washington State, not just some obstructionist park neighbors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Commenter:

I am absolutely outraged at the prospect of St Edwards being sold off. This park is our favorite place to go for hikes and our kids grew up walking the trails there. This is a jewel in King County's crown that you are tossing away. This cannot happen. I thought the plan was to sell the old monastery but not the 300+ acres. Now I am being told that the acreage is being sold off too and I am livid. This park is packed with hikers, bikes and families. It is one of the best parks in the Seattle area. Please, please do not go through with this sale. It would be a great loss to future generations.

Michael:

Dear (redacted),

Your information is untrue. Nothing is being sold. The park is currently 316-acres in size and this proposal will add 9.77-acres to the park, making it a bigger park! Quite the opposite from what you are hearing.

The Seminary and associated buildings would be leased in this proposal, which means State Parks retains ownership. Private funds are being used, but the lease is explicit that the building be open to the public. Private money for public benefit. And at the end of the 62-year lease, the building will be improved at no cost to the taxpayer.

There is no sale. Please do not fret about that. I don’t know where you got that awful information, but it certainly sounds scary!

Please call me if you would like to discuss. My number is (360) 902-8671.

Commenter:

What a relief! My husband and I are ecstatic to hear the information we received is incorrect. Thank you so much for the quick response. I will pass on the information. I am so sorry that I didn't ask first before reading you the riot act. Yikes. It just shows how passionate some of us Washingtonians are about our public parks. 😉😉

Thank you for all the work you do to keep Washington beautiful for future generations.

I have enjoyed events and taken advantage of this beautiful PUBLIC Park. I would argue against the proposal that would deprive citizens of the amenities of this PUBLIC Park. I would urge further study and look to the home owners and community members for ways to support this treasured property and maintain it in the public trust.

I support the Requested Actions of the Parks Commission including the following: 1. Approve the exchange of the McDonald Property for the 62-year lease of the Seminary Building, as set forth in the Exchange Agreement (Appendix 5) 2. Approve the 62-year lease of the Seminary Building and associated land and structures. 3. Delegate authority to the Director to execute the Exchange Agreement and 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate to rehabilitate the Seminary, consistent with terms of the draft lease 4. Delegate authority to the Director to approve minor changes to the Seminary lease after it has been executed.

There are many who do not want change and have unrealistic ideals about the seminary building being rehabbed and operated by a non-profit. Obviously, that is not going to happen or it would have in the 38+ years since the land was sold to the State for a park. Please consider what is best for the entire community and not just the comments of the vocal minority who use misinformation and scare tactics to turn the public against a project. (This happened in the past with the McMenamins proposal which was subsequently built in Bothell). If the community’s interest is to preserve the seminary building, their efforts should be ensuring the project is the best possible and not just saying no to any proposal.

I live within walking distance of St. Edwards and hike the trails 3-4 times/week. I will be impacted by the additional traffic in the surrounding area but feel the additional tax revenue to the City of Kenmore, locating a destination facility in Kenmore, having a restaurant within walking distance, increasing the visibility and usage of the park, the addition of the waterfront McDonald property to the park, etc. are acceptable tradeoffs.

Issues I would like considered include: · Require the project provide significant benefit to the community · Require the construction of a parking garage to serve the lodge. The existing parking will not be sufficient for both park users and lodge patrons/staff. · Require improvements to the access road from Juanita Drive. The existing narrow, 2-lane roadway is not sufficient to handle an additional 800+ peak hour daily trips. • Consider adding a second entrance as there is currently only the one mentioned above.

I can't find the proper link to the meeting to be held this week. I did submit feedback last spring, and have not changed my mind that the Daniel's Real Estate plan is the best option available to save the beauty and practicality of the park. I urge you to vote in favor of continuing the project. The news I heard says the ball parks project has no bearing on the hotel plan--but strongly feel that the traffic, noise, garbage, lighting and parking for the ball games will be far more detrimental to the peace and quiet than that created by a hotel.

I hope you had a great week, I am sure you are looking forward to the weekend. It's been a while since we have been in touch, I have a couple of questions which I hope are not too difficult to answer.

I recently learned about the upcoming Commission meeting January 5 at Bastyr U and just read the December 5th Press Release posted to Parks site, copied into the email below. I am trying to understand the timing of the lease review and decision making process visa vie timing of the Final EIS.

The Press Release makes no mention of the Final EIS, the timing of its release and consideration of its findings in the final Lease Proposal. My understanding is that the purpose of the SEPA - EIS process, culminating with the Final EIS, is identify and articulate specific environmental concerns and possibilities for mitigation that may influence/impact (in this case) the specific provisions of the proposed lease.

This being the case, I am not understanding the logic behind making final determinations on the proposed lease Before the Final EIS has been made public, all environmental concerns raised by the public have been addressed, and possible mitigation measures identified. I'm not understanding how the process on final lease negotiations can move forward before this essential SEPA step has been taken.

Can you provide me some explanation of the timing of the final EIS visa vie timing of final Lease preparation. Based on the Press Release, I now understand the final proposed lease will be made public 12/22 with final comments due 8 days later, 12/30.

How can the public fully evaluate the specific lease provisions without the scientific basis of findings which should be promulgated in the Final EIS? What can the public expect re timing of release of the Final EIS and how does this timing fit into the overall time frame of lease prep and approvals?

Second, I do not understand the final sentence in the press release. "A proposal by the City of Kenmore to improve ball fields at the park is unrelated to the building lease under consideration and has no bearing on the proposed Seminary project." The Seminary DEIS and EIS was/is directed to consider and address Cumulative Impacts of the possible Seminary hotel development and the proposed ball fields rolling out in one park landscape. Therefore, from a Cumulative Impact perspective at SESP, the Seminary and Ball Fields projects are inextricably related. Can you explain the basis for claiming these two projects are unrelated?

Will you explain to me why a special meeting of Park Commission was called for January 5, 2017? Why the rush to authorize a lease? A lot of information is being released in a very short period of time. Will the Park Commissioners have enough time in this holiday period to comfortably and thoughtfully examine the information and make good decisions? Would the Park Commissioners make better decisions if the subject of authorizing the State Parks Director to execute a lease was put off to the regularly scheduled meeting on January 26? To me this seems like an unnecessary burden on a volunteer commission.

PLEASE, please, do whatever is necessary to save this beautiful, historic building, before it is allowed to further deteriorate any further. It would appear that you have one, and only one, acceptable offer to take this project on. Don't let opposition from immediate neighbors, IF it occurs, prevent the saving of a magnificent build- Ing for new uses. Thank you!

WSPRC must approve a rehab plan for this magnificent structure and associated buildings and landscape!!! Yes!!! Please push for this action with all your might!!! We have lost so much of our built environment over the decades. We hardly know who we are anymore. I know some of the stories associated with this place are ugly but can't we still learn from our past and make this place a refuge for both the cultural history residents and the natural history lovers? I think so and this place is worthy of that.

I am writing to offer my support for the St. Edward Seminary building. This is a treasure to the citizens of the state of Washington and my family sincerely hopes that the proposed historic preservation of this building and the surrounding valuable public lands can be accomplished. Thank you.

I urge the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to approve the lease with Daniels Real Estate for Saint Edward Seminary building. Daniels has a proven commitment to preserving and activating significant historic structures like the seminary building and would be an ideal tenant,

In addition to the financial benefit to Washington State tax payers, the agreement would improve the park experience for visitors. Activating the vacant space would make the park feel like a safer place without jeopardizing the "wilderness" characteristics of the park and would attract visitors who would not otherwise visit.

For years Washington State Parks has been derelict in its mission of caring for this treasured historic place. The Daniels lease provides the financial resources necessary to fulfill this commitment to citizens and to connect Washingtonians to a cultural heritage site previously off limits.

Please save St. Edwards Seminary building.....we live in a time, in a region, where so many of our historical sights, buildings, connections are being torn down. This is a beautiful area....please preserve the beauty for future generations to enjoy.

We will not be able to attend the public meeting about the proposed lease with Daniels Real Estate for the Saint Edward Seminary building, so we are writing to voice our strong support of Daniels’ proposal to save the building.

Please approve it!

This possible news of entering into a 62 year lease with McDaniels Real Estate is a Christmas gift to the people of the State of Washington! Thank you for your vision and perseverance.

I fully support leasing the St. Edwards structures to a private enterprise. As McMenemins proved, this is just a win-win for everyone. You save a historic structure and have a nice venue to visit, have dinner at, etc...and in the case of St. Edwards, probably have weddings, etc. Do not listen to the naysayers! They'd rather see the building crumble than given an inch. I, too, grew up about a mile away from St. Edwards. I've been using that park since the very year it was turned into a park. No one loves that park more than I do. I've hiked all its trails, my friend was married there, I've gotten a tour of the crumbling insides by the ranger, I've researched its history, and I've followed this discussion over the years about its fate. Bastyr bought the newer buildings to no great consternation and fuss and they have been a good neighbour and steward of their section of the park--and they have traffic and events and even built more buildings. Having a hotel and restaurant will increase visitors--but it will be a boon to the park overall.

Also, frankly, I would welcome a restaurant there--where I could go have something to eat after a hike or swim.

Naysayer voices always drown out the silent majority--but I and many of my friends who use the park are happy to see the building saved and a venue go in there that we all would use.

I think the email below said that if I want to comment during the public meeting, I'm supposed to email you. I would like to make a public comment to that committee:

Here are my comments. I can read them aloud to the committee if allowed.

1. In 62 years, St. Edward State Park will be as important to Kenmore and the north-end cities as Central Park is to NYC. It will be the only, significant open green space within 10 miles in any direction. The NYC founders had a 200 year vision when they created Central Park. We ask that our parks department have that kind of vision now. Making the seminary into a commercial enterprise today will forever make the heart of St Edward commercial. It will never go back to the people. I support knocking most or all of the building down and creating green fields. This is a very low-cost option for the 200 year value our kids and their kids will enjoy in the park.

2. The parks department are contemplating putting in a turf sport complex in fields directly east of the seminary building. Bringing 1,000 people and screaming kids to those fields for sports each weekend day and evening (100 yds away from the seminary building) is in direct contrast to an expensive, high-end spa hotel. If the hotel goes through, they will fight usage of those fields. The parks department has to prioritize use of the parks by the people over high-end commercial development.

Overall the project seems acceptable, with one EXCEPTION, public parking availability.

Please be sure there are adequate on-site parking options for the day visitors to the park, and that the proposed "underground" parking is completed within a year of the lodge opening. The employees and guests of the lodge will take away most of the current surface spaces, and there does not appear to be a lot of space left for the park visitors/users.

Again, public parking is critical to the users of the park, and must be appropriately addressed and maintained.

The seminary is a rare jewel in a setting that gets harder and harder to find. Homage to history is part of the "diversity" of a community. Diversity should not only be in our population as people, but also in our buildings. So much richer! How tragic to see this bit of history disappear when there is a firm able and willing to extend its life. Please don't fracture the opportunity we have to save the seminary.

This comment is to register my strong support for the lease for the proposed Lodge at Saint Edwards, which I understand the Commission is considering.

As a long-time neighbor and park user, I believe this project is the best interests of park users, fellow neighbors, city residents, and public visitors. The developer appears to have a good track record of successful projects that have taken into account the sensitive interests of the various parties to historic preservation projects, and the specific plan for this project appears to be balanced and well thought out. When complete, the Lodge will be a key asset for the neighboring cities and populations.

While others are certainly entitled to their differing opinions on this project, I note that this is not a commercial development of forest land—as some of the commentary by neighborhood groups has suggested. Rather, this would be restoration and preservation of an existing historic building that is falling into serious disrepair. It cannot be reasonable to expect taxpayers to continue to pay upkeep on a vacant historic building, especially when there is a credible plan that will guarantee its restoration and preservation for future generations.

Please, let’s not let another opportunity like this fall victim to those who oppose any change. Thank you.

I am writing in support of the lease agreement for development at St Edwards Park. I'm a 32 year resident of Finn Hill and I want the beautiful building saved. I believe development will enhance our park experience as well as bring much needed jobs to our residents. Thank you for considering my comments.

In favor of lodge development. Would love to see life in those buildings once again!

We strongly support the plan the Daniel’s Co. has put together for the St. Edward Seminary which would preserve a beautiful historic building.

We would like to express our SUPPORT for Daniels Real Estate to lease and renovate St. Edwards Seminary. We believe it would be a travesty and against the general principles of the Parks Commission to not preserve and restore such a beautiful historical building. Also, the renovation would provide Kenmore with a much needed area attraction that it very much missing!

My husband and I live directly across Lake Washington from St. Edwards Park.

I strongly support the 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate that will preserve the Saint Edward Seminary building. I have considered the pros and cons, and the pros far outweigh the cons. It would be a travesty to allow this beautiful building to be lost. The proposed hotel is a wonderful way to save the building, contribute to the local economy, and enhance the park. It is the best solution for the citizens of the state of Washington, who own the park.

I am not able to attend the meeting on January 5, but please consider my comments as an enthusiastic vote in favor of the proposed 62-year lease. Please do what is best for all Washington citizens.

As resident's of Lake Forest Park, our family has used the grounds since 1985. We have taken boy scout hikes there, walked the trails with dogs, played soccer on the fields, attended a wedding at the Grotto, attended a conference in the building, and participated in swim programs for seniors in the pool. After considering the impacts of change, I support the lease to Daniels Real Estate. This is a best practice opportunity to save a landmark and provide benefits to the community.

This is a great big NO to your ill made plans to 'lease' the hotel in St Edwards. We need more park land that is owned by the public, not less. I don't want public private 'partnerships' that end up - in effect - taking away this park from public ownership for my lifetime. A 'lease' this long is a giveaway.

I feel you don't understand the idea of public ownership. You would be more than welcome in the Trump administration.

I live across from St. Edwards Park and I strongly support the lease with Daniels Real Estate that will preserve the St. Edwards Seminary building. It supports the park and the community, as well as preserves the beautiful seminary buildings.

I am a frequent user of St Edward State Park in Kenmore WA. I have carefully read the lease documentation provided to the public and am unable to identify a clear solution to the parking issue at St Edward. With the current configuration pre-hotel, a sunny Sunday afternoon will have the area fully parked (and users have left or parked at Bastyr due to lack of parking). Now State Parks is proposing adding a hotel/spa/restaurant as well as a lighted baseball field to the area, however, the added parking does not seem sufficient to accommodate these increase uses nor does there appear to be a mechanism to police the general public parking areas to ensure that hotel guests and baseball field users do not take precious spots from the public. St Edward State park is a precious public resource and many of us drive to the site. Please don't let tight parking force us out of the park, our park, our land owned and loved by the taxpayers of the state.

As a 35 year resident of Finn Hill and an active member of the Finn Hill Neighborhood Alliance, I fully support the plans to transform the Seminary Building.

In full disclosure: I am a contractor that has worked with the Seattle developer, “Daniels Real Estate.” There work is excellent and the transformation will be great for our community.

I am writing to you in support of the proposal by Daniel Real Estate. I am a life time resident of the Seattle area and a resident of Kenmore for the last 35 years.

As a regular user of the park, I have seen the Seminary building continually decline. Since it was purchased by the State of Washington the rate of decline has gradually accelerated, as a result of Parks funding cuts. The Daniels proposal is a least the third in a series of attempts by State Parks to preserve the facilities. State Parks is to be commended for these efforts.

The harsh reality is neither the Legislature nor the taxpayers are willing to fund what needs to be done. Saint Edwards is only one example of this systemic problem we face across many of our facilities. As opponents block each proposals, the cost of future rehabilitation continues to rise. Most significantly, at some time there will be a tipping point. The facility will either be torn down or a secure perimeter established to protect people from a crumbling building. This will be the legacy of the opponent groups. Perhaps this outcome of the, No Action Alternative, should be more clearly and directly addressed in the NEPA/SEPA evaluation.

I am writing in support of the proposal by Daniels Real Estate Company to renovate and restore the seminary at St Edwards State Park. As the parents of a young child, my husband and I enjoy visiting the park to play at the playground, explore the trails, and swim at the beach. During our visits, though, we are saddened to see the beautiful and historic seminary building as it continues to fall into disrepair. Like many others, we believe that the current proposal is a thoughtful, responsible approach to restoring this beautiful building while still maintaining public access and the general character of the park for all to enjoy. We believe this proposal would be a significant asset for the park and the community, without placing the financial burden on the State Parks or local community. The developer has specifically addressed ways to manage increased activity in the park, and we feel that the plan is both comprehensive and well suited to the park and local community. We hope that you will agree to support this valuable partnership, in order to maintain and improve this beautiful park and historic buildings.

The development of this park to have a hotel on it will impact the pristine nature of the park, increase the activity at the park and make the park less accessible to WA state residents, who own the park. This is all worth something. It's worth compensation to the owners, WA state residents and their families.

I think it is a fine idea to allow a hotel in this park if nthere are equal compensation to the park owners, the people of Washington State. Equal compensation might be:

• free entry for community events sponsored by the hotel • increased staff at the park for education events for the people who own the park, residents of WA state • equivalent amounts of park access for WA state residents in state parks across the state, no fee access • a fee is charged, in addition to the hotel fee for staying there, which is used, by the State of WA, to reduce camping fees at State Parks--camping is too expensive • the park and hotel host an exchange program that brings low income and minority youth into the park for educational outings and teaches about the ecosystem of Puget Sound and the lake.

I'd like to express my strong support for the Daniels plan to renovate the St. Eds Seminary. I've been to multiple meetings on the subject and heard Kevin Daniels speak on it multiple times and believe he plans on preserving the park while restoring a beautiful building. I believe this will actually enhance the park and provide economic stimulus to the area at the same time.

Note that the opposition is very vocal, but I have spoken to hundreds of people about the project in my dental practice, ranging in age and longevity as Kenmore residents (some people have been coming to this practice for 60 years, some just moved here recently ), and the VAST majority of them are in support of the project. I believe that the opposition is a very vocal minority and most of Kenmore is in support of the project.

We enthusiastically support the proposed 62 year lease with Daniels Real Estate to preserve the St Edwards Seminary Building as a hotel. We live in northeast Seattle and are fortunate enough to view the park across the lake as well as to visit the park.

This significant building is an important architectural and historic legacy for the entire region, and its preservation will increase public awareness and support for the project and the surrounding park.

Please consider our two votes supporting the preservation project.

I strongly support the 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate that will preserve the Saint Edward Seminary building. I have considered the pros and cons, and the pros far outweigh the cons. It would be a travesty to allow this beautiful building to be lost. The proposed hotel is a wonderful way to save the building, contribute to the local economy, and enhance the park. It is the best solution for the citizens of the state of Washington, who own the park. I have used the park many times when attending workshops and concerts at Bastyr University and have always admired the wonderful setting and building of St. Andrews Seminary.

I am not able to attend the meeting on January 5, but please consider my comments as an enthusiastic vote in favor of the proposed 62-year lease.

This is my request to save the Seminary building as an historic structure for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations In a time when construction is destroying and tearing down all of our history, some buildings deserve saving. this is one of them.

I am a resident of Bothell since 1980 and a frequent user of the State Park at Saint Edwards. I strongly support Daniel’s project and would recommend entering into a 62 year lease.

His plan to renovate the Seminary is exactly what is needed. It is a beautiful structure and will be permanently ruined if it is not remodeled soon. His vision of a quality resort is exactly what the community needs and I feel it will enhance the park.

Please share the following with the Washington State Parks Commission:

We support the Requested Actions of the Parks Commission including the following: 1. Approve the exchange of the McDonald Property for the 62-year lease of the Seminary Building, as set forth in the Exchange Agreement (Appendix 5) 2. Approve the 62-year lease of the Seminary Building and associated land and structures. 3. Delegate authority to the Director to execute the Exchange Agreement and 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate to rehabilitate the Seminary, consistent with terms of the draft lease 4. Delegate authority to the Director to approve minor changes to the Seminary lease after it has been executed.

There are many naysayers who do not want change and have pie-in-the-sky ideals about the seminary building being rehabbed and operated by a non-profit. Obviously, that is not going to happen or it would have in the 38+ years since the land was sold to the State for a park. Please consider what is best for the entire community and not just the comments of the vocal majority who use misinformation and scare tactics to turn the public against a project. (This happened in the past with the McMenamins proposal which was subsequently built in Bothell). If the community’s interest is to preserve the seminary building, their efforts should ensuring the project is the best possible and not just saying no to any proposal.

We live within walking distance of St. Edwards and hike the trails 3-4 times/week. We will be impacted by the additional traffic in the surrounding area but feel the additional tax revenue to the City of Kenmore, locating a destination facility in Kenmore, having a restaurant within walking distance, increasing the visibility and usage of the park, the addition of the waterfront McDonald property to the park, etc. are acceptable tradeoffs.

Issues we would like considered include: · Require the project provide significant benefit to the community · Require the construction of a parking garage to serve the lodge. The existing parking will not be sufficient for both park users and lodge patrons/staff. · Require improvements to the access road from Juanita Drive. The existing narrow, 2- lane roadway is not sufficient to handle an additional 800+ peak hour daily trips.

STATEMENT TO PARKS COMMISSION ON DANIELS PROPOSAL FOR ST. EDWARDS SEMINARY I have visited St. Edwards State Park on several occasions. I have very much enjoyed its natural character. On one occasion I noticed that the seminary building was open to the elements and took a walk inside. I found the condition of the building quite regrettable. I support the proposed adaptive reuse of the building put forward by Daniels Real Estate. I am a member of the Good Shepherd Center Advisory Board. The Good Shepherd Center in Seattle’s Wallingford residential neighborhood is a very parallel situation to the St. Edwards Seminary building. Both are large buildings that housed activities of a religious organization located in, what is now, a large park. The Good Shepherd building and grounds were owned and operated by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd and served as a home and school for young women referred to the facility by local parish priests. When it was no longer financially possible to carry on, the order sold the building and land to the City of Seattle in the early 1970's. The City, having no experience with operating an historic building, turned operation over to Historic Seattle, a municipal corporation. The former orchard and gardens are operated by the City as a public park. The building is now occupied by a variety of community serving organizations, such as the Wallingford Community Senior Center, Tilth, the Meridian School, a K-5 school, and the Washington Toxics Coalition, and meeting rooms and a modest-sized concert hall. In brief, the Center and the park have been a great success. The uses of the Center are very active and generate a lot of participation with the building and a lot of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The park is also very active, both as a play area, an area for organized sports and an area for large events. The park also generates a lot of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The Good Shepherd Center Advisory Board is composed of representatives of the tenants, immediate neighbors and the Wallingford Community Council. The Board advises Historic Seattle on operation of the Center and the City on the operation of the park. The Advisory Board has been successful in working with both Historic Seattle and the City in anticipating and avoiding potential problems as various proposals have come up over the years and in solving problems that have arisen. Of course the most common problem that is talked about revolves around traffic and parking. It is not now a contentious issue with the neighbors but we are currently discussing how to reduce traffic congestion related to the period in the afternoon when the school lets out. The details of how a farmer’s market would be organized and how the parking and traffic could be managed to reduce impact on the neighborhood were worked out with the Advisory Board. While the nearest neighbors are well aware of the existence of the Center and the park, it has not proven to have had an adverse impact on the neighborhood. And the Center has not proven to have had an adverse impact on the use of the park. When the Center and the park use of the property was first proposed there was a great deal of discussion of potential adverse impacts so a set of rules were worked out to minimize the impacts. Those rules have been modified over time as we have learned more. At this time there really are no issues with impacts of the Center or the park on the neighborhood. Most often a potential impact is brought to the Board by one of the tenant organizations or by Historic Seattle, anticipating an issue and wanting to work something out before a problem comes up. Occasionally we hear comments from neighbors, for example right after the farmer’s market ramped up, and the Board has responded promptly with solutions. I believe the comprehensive proposal by Daniels Real Estate for the adaptive reuse of the St. Edwards Seminary building as an hotel and event space can have the same minimal impact on the neighborhood and the surrounding park as has been the case with the Good Shepherd Center. I don’t know more about the details of their proposal other than what I have read in the newspapers, but it appears they have addressed most of the issues we have seen over the years at the Good Shepherd Center. In addition they will add public access to the waterfront as a part of the park. In all, it does appear to be a win for the park and for the neighborhood. In summary, I urge the Commission to approve the proposal.

December 29, 2016 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1111 Israel Road SW Olympia, WA 98501 RE: St. Edward Seminary Agenda Item Dear Commissioners, We write to oppose the terms of the proposed agreement between the Parks and Recreation Commission and Daniels Real Estate, for the conversion of the seminary property at St. Edward State Park and urge the Commission to reject, or at least postpone, approval of the lease agreement while these issues are addressed. We have some questions and observations on points that we have not seen addressed in documents related to the project. These relate to the value that the State of Washington is said to receive from the deal with the developer and the ongoing nature of the management of the enterprise. Our belief is that answers to these questions show that the benefits are entirely one-sided – in the developer’s favor. Valuation of the property The property that is to be purchased by the developer and transferred to State Park ownership (the so-called “McDonald Property”) is, according to the King County Assessor’s record, registered in the name of Donald A. Magill. The Sales History portion of the record shows that it was transferred by quit claim deed from Elwin A. Magill to Magill Kenmore LLC on October 19, 2012. The property has had a curious valuation history. After several years of increasing valuations, it reached $3,006,000 in 2014 for the 2015 tax year. In 2015, for the 2016 tax year, it was reduced to $1,500,000. The “Review History” section of the Assessor’s record shows that the reduction of was the result of a “local appeal.” We talked with the King County Board of Appeals and Equalization and learned that an appeal of the proposed 2016 assessment was filed on December 1, 2015, by Kevin Daniels, acting as agent for the owner. An “Assessment Roll Stipulation” was agreed to on May 11, 2016. The “stipulation” means that the 50% reduction in the appraisal was agreed to by the Board and Mr. Daniels without a hearing being conducted. (The unbuilt parcel immediately north of the McDonald Property, almost 6.5 acres, also including highbank waterfront, has shown a steady increase in valuation over this time period.) The Seattle Times wrote that the value of the property to be purchased by the developer and turned over to the State Park is $3 million. This number, it turns out, comes from a description of the agenda item for the Commission meeting on January 5, 2017, related to approval of the lease. Fee Simple Interest of the McDonald Property (“as is” condition”): $1,490,000 Fee Simple Interest of the McDonald Property (as if owned by the Commission with Physical access): $3,000,000 Boil this down. The Daniels letter to the Commission, dated August 12, 2015, is the first proposal involving the McDonald Property. It is soon followed by the developer’s appeal of the land value. The developer persuades the Appeals Board to reduce the appraisal by $1.5 million. He turns around and claims that the value to the State is $3,000,000. We suppose Magill Kenmore LLC will be pleased with the lower price when the time to sell comes. Ongoing revenue streams The developer has promised to collect the daily “Discovery Pass” fee from overnight guests and parking fees from day use visitors. From the agenda item document: Finally, the rehabilitated Seminary will create ongoing revenue streams, generated from several sources over the next 62 years, with a cumulative value, unadjusted for inflation, of about $55,000,000. Anticipated new revenue sources include: Overnight room fees: approximately $246,000 annually Day use parking fees (north parking lot): approximately $146,000 annually Where the $55 million comes from is unclear. $392,000 per year for 62 years amounts to $24,304,000. The figure of $246,000 for fees from overnight guests implies that 67 guests will stay each night of the year. Given the projected 80 to 100 rooms, this works out to a nightly occupancy rate somewhere between 67% and 84%. Is this realistic? On-going management of the hotel The developer’s experience and expertise is in the rehabilitation of buildings. Will that company be able to manage the business for the 62-year term of the lease? If not, who will? The lease provides for the “permitted transfer” without written approval from the State to another company to run the hotel – maybe Disney? Our own belief is that the establishment of a destination resort in the midst of a heavily- used urban State Park would mean a terrible and unprecedented loss to the people of the State of Washington. The numbers show an unwarranted benefit to the developer

I am in favor of the proposed project for St. Edward's State park. It will be a significant enhancement to the community, while also preserving a historic building.

I am very much in favor of this project and feel strongly that it is in the taxpayers' best interest to take advantage of this public-private partnership. Ft. Worden is a good example of such a partnership that has greatly enriched the community of Port Townsend and made it a destination for diverse groups of people. WA State Parks would not be a good steward of St. Edward's if the building was allowed to fall into decay. Plus, it is a bonus to add the nearly 10-acre parcel to the Park that will provide safe trail access to Lake Washington. I applaud the group of individuals who have put this incredible package together -- well done!!

I was originally against this development idea, but after reading more about it, I've decided I'm in favor of the proposal to develop the seminary at St. Edwards into a hotel. I would like to see the structure preserved and I believe it's a good plan that will allow the park and the hotel to co-exist. I base my support on the assumption that the trails and beach at St. Eddie's can be preserved for public use as it is now and that more lake front land will be added to the park.

Please do not issue the proposed lease of the St. Edwards State Park. Public space is limited and precious and needs to be kept in the public sphere. Please do not abuse the public trust by letting our public amenities become a profit center for the already wealthy.

St. Edwards State Park, a sanctuary of the native northwest environment in a rapidly urbanizing region, must remain forever publicly owned and preserved in its entirety. St. Edwards' buildings must remain completely dedicated to non-profit public use, for the needy, for education and for the arts, whether restored, partially restored or returned to open space.

Daybreak Star, Centrum, El Centro de la Raza and Youngstown Cultural Arts offer working models.

Washington Parks and the City of Kenmore must coordinate interlocal planning to so preserve St. Edwards and so safeguard this sanctuary.

We live in Bellevue, but are considering moving to Kirkland, and one of the reasons is that we love St. Edwards State Park so much. Leasing parts of the park to a private developer will likely affect our decision and move Kirkland lower in our list of potential new places to move to.

As a neighbor and someone that uses the park regularly, I hope that this plan will move forward. I do think that it is important to keep it open and available to the general public and appreciate that this has been included in the plan.

My family has lived near St Edwards State Park since the mid 1980's. It has been a real nature sanctuary for us, our children, and grandchildren. Just the open space and lack of development provides a rare space these days in our every intensifying urban environment. We strongly urge that this area remain undeveloped as it currently stands for future generations to get away from the artificial environment of urban development. Once it is lost, it will NEVER return. Many folks don't have the time nor resources to drive out of our urban environment to get into a setting like this just to commune with our wonderful outdoor environment. Again we urge you not to develop this area but leave it as is....our culture really needs this environment space to help us get those precious moments of recharge.

It's been 37 years since my husband and I had the opportunity to attend a weekend conference at Saint Edward Seminary. Even then we were struck by it's beauty and what a true gem it was so close to our urban environment. Since that time, we have become fascinated by the historic architecture of our city, state and nation. As long time members of Historic Seattle and The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, we continue to be more and more aware of the importance of keeping the few remaining building of this type in our area. Allowing the building to be fenced off would just create an eyesore in a beautiful park. Knocking it down would lead to the loss of a very significant architectural resource. It was very enlightening to read the article in this morning's "Seattle Times" where the State Historic Preservation Officer was quoted as saying, "We think it's important to rehabilitate the seminary building, put it into economic use and preserve it for all citizens. It's not a local resource." This is a beautiful park and the building is equally beautiful, although currently quite rundown and underused. What a fabulous combination the restored building will be in the gorgeous park. Sounds like a win win! Please seriously consider giving whatever approval is needed for Kevin Daniels group to move forward with this project to save the Saint Edward Seminary. http://komonews.com/news/local/public-weighs-in-on-renovation-plans-of-historic-kenmore- landmark listed your address for sending feedback on The Seminary Building at St. Edwards State Park. May you receive rich, civil discourse from my Kenmore neighbors. (Hey, a person can hope). The points I would make: The Seattle Times reports: Citizens for Saint Edward Park, have opposed previous commercial ventures in the seminary building and said they’d rather see parts fall into ruins than a hotel on the site. This is naive at best. Left untouched, the building is not going to magically become the moss-covered remains of a 500-year-old Scottish castle. Rather, the building is only poised to be an attractive and dangerous nuisance. It will pass from stately to decrepit at a pace sure to make the teeth grind of any of who see it over the next 62 years. The suggestion of "putting fence around it" is also naive; that it will just make it a more interesting challenge for those who would violate it. Nor will the state, with its numerous other priorities, come up with the $16 million needed to rehabilitate the building; the magical transformation into the Scottish Castle ruins is more likely. Private investment is the only option to save the building and its history. Park lodges In Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks are both pleasant places; I've made day visits to each. They do not detract, but instead provide services and focus for those who choose to visit.

The monetary value of the the offer of 10 acres of Lake Washington shoreline in lieu of rent is out my area of expertise. I can say preserving additional shore is a worthy cause, and 10 acres of recreational area will compensate those who feel the need to avert their eyes passing the renovated building.

Lastly, it should be noted that this is a state, not city owned & operated, park; it doesn't just exist for us citizens of Kenmore. Making the environment more friendly to to those who would visit from afar should be a positive, not a negative.

I say let the hotel go forward.

Dear Planning Commision, Please do not open Saint Edwards to private enterprise. I believe with all my heart that this is taking a terrible step with this public resource. It must remain a fully public asset, now and forever. I spent my youth exploring Saint Edwards, and the seminary building inspired my career in architecture. However, as much as I love the building as a architect I know that transforming it into a hotel/spa as is planned will require a massive investment in seismic and life safety upgrades. I would rather see the building demolished than see it become a commercial enterprise. The asset is the natural beauty of St Edwards. Please do not forget this. Today I brought my young daughter to walk the trails and enjoy this natural oasis. I hope she will one day bring our grandchildren there.

I believe that my opinion hold no weight here as the State of Washington, et al, have long been on a track to privatize more and more of public lands. I believe that someone with a creative mind could think of many ways to use this wonderful building on STATE LAND, within the City of Kenmore, that would benefit the public and 'the greater good'. I think this is a slippery slope to privatization to many things that are in the public domain now; say, for the sake of argument, public school, prisons, State Parks beside this one, etc, etc. I think the State is merely 'going through the motions' of an EIS just to say they did, and of course, we know what it will say: Go ahead with the Hotel, parking lots, and other stuff that goes with it.

Goodbye trees, birds, quiet, clean air, places for public to rest and recoup and play. Good old profit wins every time.

Bah Humbug, Stephanie Harris, RN 2nd Vice Chair, 32nd LD Democrats

I have written to the parks department on one other occasion in support of the planned lodge at Saint Edward Park.

I have followed the conversations regarding the proposal by the Daniels Real Estate group to renovate the Seminary building at Saint Edwards. I am in complete agreement that the Seminary Building should be restored and used as a "lodge" under the supervision of Daniels Real Estate.

I don’t see any hope for public access to the hotel grounds, and I think it’s a missed opportunity for an overlap. More privatization without remediation, at least on-site. Too bad.

I strongly support the proposed rehabilitation project at the Seminary. I see that the Daniels group has taken many aspects of the property into consideration for the benefit of a significant historical property and for the public.

Our home is one of the closest homes to the land/buildings that may be leased at St. Edward's Park. We prefer that the lease project NOT go forward and the old seminary be torn down, as we don't think a commercial complex is appropriate for the park, plus we are concerned with additional traffic and congestion on Juanita Drive and in the park, plus additional noise that we may hear at our home. We enjoy the deer, coyotes, owls and other wildlife that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the property, as well. That said, if the land is leased it is absolutely imperative to us that the lease stipulate what CAN and CANNOT be done with the POOL and GYM complex on the property during the lease, not just the old seminary building. We certainly don't want the gym and/or pool transformed into things like brew pubs, restaurants, card rooms, casinos or additional conference space. The gym lease could fairly easily be bought out and the pool complex building could be transformed by the leasee; please stipulate no casinos, additional conference areas, no additional restaurants, pubs/taverns/bars, offices, etc. for the pool and gym. While the ideal situation would be where the pool is upgraded and opened to the public (including high school swim teams) and the gym open to the public, we would prefer that the pool and gym be demolished rather than transformed into restaurants, conference centers, pubs, commercial offices, etc. Thank you for your attention.

Hope state parks will go forward with the lease to Daniels Real Estate. This will be a great addition to our community of Kenmore and will preserve the historic building.

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, I strongly SUPPORT restoring the Seminary Building at Saint Edward State Park. Additionally, I support Daniels Real Estate desires to lease the Seminary and adaptively reuse it as a lodge. This investment would open the entire building for public use! I believe that there couldn't be a better offer. I am familiar with Daniels Real Estate and know that this developer will carry out all plans with high integrity and thoughtfulness for all stakeholders. I implore you to take the offer and save the building.

Please work to preserve this important historical building.

I think this will be a fantastic project. The seminary building is way too valuable to be destroyed or left to deteriorate to the point when it will have to be razed. The lodge is a so much better option. Daniels does very good work in rehabilitating old buildings and developing class properties. I am a big fan of our state parks. I donate money to the Washington State Parks Foundation. There will remain plenty of open public space at Saint Edwards state park. It's not as if the public has use of the seminary building now, so what's the difference if it means saving a grand historic building and putting it to good use?

Thanks for saving the building and grounds for appropriate community use! We are all in favor of moving forward and so glad Daniel's Real estate has taken on this challenge! Support to our state park and event center!

Thank you for being open to comments from neighbors of the park.

If this project is properly mitigated, I support this project (unlike some of my neighbors), and I like having a credible developer doing this,…BUT,..as this project is proposed in the FEIS, there is strong likelihood that the project will be under-parked on summer evenings about 5pm to 10pm when the hotel & restaurant are busy, and corresponding staffs will be at peak numbers, and the park will have lots of visitors.

The traffic study seems to allude to a problem but its parking solutions are unrealistic,…“Parking for Saint Edward Park would be separate from the lodge parking” (how?)…and … “The proposed on-site parking is expected to accommodate demand under most conditions. If occasional events are expected to exceed parking demand, this could be accommodated though use of valet parking to stack vehicles more tightly into the existing space, or by developing an agreement with Bastyr University to lease its excess parking during evenings and/or weekends when the university's parking demand is lower.

In that peak time, the lodge/restaurant guests won’t valet,..they’ll just park in the Park’s stalls.

In making your decision, I would like to request & urge that the approval conditions/mitigations ensure what is be told to the community that there will be NO net loss of parking for the non- lodge users.

Additionally; • Please look at McMenamin’s in Bothell, rather than a SeaTac project for parking comparisons,…it’s an entirely different demographic for restaurant use and you need to consider the simultaneous PM peak park/restaurant uses • Please have the developer identify the exact square footage of space dedicated to restaurant (which also drives the count on restaurant staff parking needs). It should allow at least 10 to 12 stalls/1000’.

A simple solution would be to add a 2nd deck to the parking structure they are proposing. Hope they’ll do that as I’d like to see this project go.

Unreal!!! Give the park to a corporation and wonder why State Parks goes away. It used to be public lands, and not at all in keeping with the CAMP.

Commenter:

Dear Mr. Hankinson, You no doubt receive thousands of emails regarding the proposal by the Daniels Company for St. Edwards State Park and the building there. The letters you receive with be on one side or another and in my opinion, at this point, won’t have any affect on your opinion or the members of the park dept who vote on this proposal. I have been involved enough the last two years of this process to know that you and the park administrators want this deal to go through. Now it is just a matter of slogging through all the many details of the public process until you can consummate this deal. My guess is that my letter won’t even be opened by you, let alone will I receive any reply. What difference will my opinion, my arguments make? Not much. I have no illusions at this point. Particularly since I have witnessed your presentations and the Daniels Co. at the hearings. This deal is like a freight train going down hill. You have not hidden your bias from the start sir.

However, just to make myself feel a bit better that I am airing my concerns, I’m writing this letter anyway. At the very least, I want to put in writing to you my opinion.

The very fact that the government would allow a huge commercial establishment within the people’s land is unprecedented in this state. A concession stand, sure, but a 100 room, 250 auto garage, huge convention center, spa, restaurant and bar?! And how about the traffic in and out of the park? No doubt a four lane road will be next, with a road down to the lake, a boat launch, concession and rental facility, etc. Unbelievable that this is even being considered, let alone will most likely be approved. Do you really think the Daniels company is so stupid as to put $45 million into this deal just for a hotel? They are savvy business people who have a plan to get a good return on their investment. That means what they show as their plan is just the start. Attracting folks to their facilities will drive their actions and the peacefulness and wildness of the park will not mean a damn thing to them when they must show their investors the return they demand. The footprint of the Daniels land will be small, but the whole 330 acres will be adversely affected by the massive change they will bring to the peaceful park. The thousands of cars and paying customers they must attract to fund their profit needs will destroy the park as we know it. But to “save” the building, it’s worth sacrificing the whole park.

You say, what is a better idea to save the building? My answer and many others is, gut the inside of the right side of the building, retaining the outside façade and rebuild the grand ballroom side for weddings, meetings, etc. This could be financed by private and some public monies. What is so sacrosanct about that building that to “save” it, you will bastardize it and the 330 acres around it? People come to the park not for that building, they come to enjoy the peace and wildness of it in an increasingly congested and crowded community. Build the Daniels hotel in downtown Kenmore. The land across from the Plywood Supply company could be acquired and a grand hotel complex could be built next to the waterway there.

This park is a jewel unlike any other in the state of Washington. The Daniels proposal will serve only those who pay for their hotel and it’s services. Walking around the lobby in this commercial hotel restaurant convention center, or “lodge”, as they want to euphemistically call it, does not adhere to the parks mission which is to provide public spaces that are available to all the public.

In short, saving the building with the Daniels proposal reminds me of that famous quote from the era I grew up in, the Vietnam War. “We had to destroy the village to save it”.

Michael’s response:

Yes, it’s true I receive many emails, but you are important and I do read what you say. The Commissioners will read what you say, too. I understand you do not agree with the staff recommendations made in the requested action, but your idea to gut the inside of the building and leave a wall standing was actually considered and deeply thought about. In the summer of 2014, the Commission considered:

1. Adaptive reuse/lease 2. Mothball 3. No action 4. Partial demolition 5. Full demolition 6. Vacate

The agenda item that tells this story is attached for you. Before this agenda item was presented to the Commission, we had a public meeting in August of 2014 to reach out to the community and discuss all the options. We received public feedback about your idea and it was considered by the Commission in September 2014 at their Ilwaco Commission meeting. After reading and thinking about these options, the Commission debated them and eventually adopted adaptive reuse/lease as their preferred treatment strategy. If this did not work, they adopted vacating the building as “plan B” because they did not want to partially tear down the building.

Your idea was not ignored, but rather, it was taken seriously and in the end was not chosen. Instead, the Commission directed staff to rehabilitate the building.

Next subject—future use of the building. I want to make sure and address your concern that the Seminary could be used for something other than a hotel. Please read the lease as it describes how the building will be used. The building cannot just be reprogrammed without a process. State Parks is the landlord of the building and the Commission will approve of any new use of the building in the future.

Boat Launch. There will never be a boat launch down on the water. Our plan is to restore the shoreline to re-establish salmon habitat. On November 23, 2016, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Lead Entity approved the addition of a shoreline restoration project to the WRIA 8 Four-Year Work Plan. According to Casey Costello, habitat biologist with Washington State Fish and Wildlife, “The beach restoration project would serve to enhance an area that has been identified as an important area for salmonids including ESA listed Chinook. The shoreline in this area was identified by the WRIA – 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan as a Tier 1 zone for juvenile chinook rearing and migration. Furthermore, one of the primary restoration actions recommended by the WRIA-8 technical committee for Lake Washington is, “Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with gentle slopes designed to maximize littoral areas with a depth of less than 1 meter.” For details please view Chapter 4 of Volume I of the plan available at http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/planning/chinook- conservation-plan.aspx . “Lastly, in my professional opinion this area would be exceptionally beneficial given its proximity to the mouth of the Sammamish River (i.e. there is a greater potential for a higher number of fry to be in this area of the lake and in need of productive, shallow, nearshore habitat.)” State Parks endeavors to preserve the waterfront and keep it wild and enhance it, not harm it.

Finally, our mission reads:

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission cares for Washington’s most treasured lands, waters and historic places. State Parks connect all Washingtonians to their diverse natural and cultural heritage and provide memorable recreational and educational experiences that enhance their lives.

We care for historic places like Saint Edward through preservation. We will connect Washingtonians to their cultural heritage, which includes the Seminary building, by opening it for public use. The preserved building will provide opportunities for both recreational and educational experiences. A rehabilitated building very much follows our mission.

Thank you for writing.

Commenter’s response:

Dear Mr. Hankinson,

I must say, with all honesty, I was shocked to receive your message in reply to mine. I did not expect it, nor did I expect that I would receive a reply so quickly!

Thank you, it is very much appreciated that you replied, and with such a well-stated and comprehensive reply at that. What with all the busyness of the season; (I‘m sure you have family commitments like everyone else), your reply as such on this day was all the more an unexpected surprise.

I’m going to share your reply with a few of those who agree with my feelings on this matter. Although, being so busy today and the next few days, I have not had time to read and digest all that you have included here, I’ll get into it early next week. I plan to attend the meeting on January 5th and your information will better prepare me for that meeting. I want to clearly understand where we are with this proposal and what steps lie ahead.

Thank you, again, your reply and your promptness was quite unexpected but appreciated.

Michael’s response:

I want to thank you for your kind email to me also. I want you to know that I love our State Parks and that Saint Edward is precious to me. I grew up in Tacoma and Point Defiance was my refuge and is sacred to me just as Saint Edward is sacred to so many others. I realize we do not agree about its management, but what I believe in my heart is that we care about the park with equal amounts of passion and that we are making our best efforts to protect it. I really respect your opinions and from one human being to another, especially during these times that seem to have lost almost every semblance of civility, believe that we can disagree, but still be kind and so with that I in the most sincere way possible want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and I hope to meet you on the 5th.

Commenter’s response:

Well, you have added to my faith in our public servants with your kind response. I get cynical sometimes with the way things seem to be with entrenched self serving entities, whether they be public or private. I have to remind myself that we all have our struggles to survive and prosper in life. So it is natural to feel we must hold our ground and fight for what we want. What is amazing to me is that this grand experiment of the United States of America has worked out so well. That is, how do 330 million people of different backgrounds and personalities get along so well that there is mostly order and congeniality among us? America is truly a miracle in the history of human kind.

This process for restoration of the seminary building has been long and exhausting. It seems not to be going in the direction that I want. However, I have no complaints with the process that you and others with the state have followed. You are doing your duty for the taxpayers. And regardless of how it turns out, I will respect the outcome because it has been fair.

It has to be frustrating to put up with all the nonsense that is inherent in your job. I do admit, there just seems to be this expectation that public servants are not allowed to have feelings one way or another. Indeed, as you have stated, civility seems to be missing in so much of American culture these days. It is sad because it creates an us vs them mentality rather than a “let’s reason together” way of solving our differences. One of my sons is a King County sheriff detective and another of my sons is currently stationed in Mosel, Iraq with a US Army battalion supporting the Iraqi Army fighting ISlS. They both know what it is like to work as a public servant for our nation and they believe in what we Americans stand for.

Thank you Michael for your hard work on behalf of this project. I am feeling better about it, even if it does not turn out my way. I’ll make sure I work my way up to meet you personally and introduce myself at the meeting.

This is my favorite place to walk my dog, she loves it. I haven't met a single person within the community who supports this hotel. The traffic on Juanita drive is already getting worse without it. The extra foot traffic on the trails down to the water could cause problems. And nobody wants to bring tourists into our favorite park. This is a state park not business center. Please vote no!!

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,

Please approve the lease and development proposed by Daniels Real Estate for the Seminary at Saint Edward State Park. It is imperative that the Seminary structure be preserved in its current configuration, this is a State Park and is therefore a destination for all residents of the state and beyond. Please do not be persuaded to reject this proposal by a noisy subset of Kenmore residents who wish to stop it. They will be loud and they will be persistent. My experience with planning processes that have a public comment component is that those against tend to come out in force because they are well organized; those who would be for the proposal may not be fully aware of what it is they would be losing (not gaining) so fail to comment or attend the meetings.

I am a Kenmore resident and I use the St. Edward hiking trails several times a week, the proposal will not have a large impact on this type of use. This should be the guiding principle once the Daniels project is complete: no impact to current public access and usage. There should be no restrictions placed on the grounds surrounding the Seminary/Hotel structure, these should include but not be limited to: the playground, the fields, the grotto, the trails, certain parking areas, summer concert stage. We should never see a sign that says: "hotel guests only". There must be public access for non-hotel guests inside certain areas of the Seminary/Hotel building, in particular the bell tower should be fitted such that it is safe and 100% accessible through the Hotel, for free.

Please, do allow the alternative to the proposal happen: no restoration of the building. I understand some portions of the structure would be knocked down and fencing erected at the site. This will be a permanent monument to your shortsightedness should this happen. And I will be ashamed to call myself a resident of Kenmore knowing that a few of my neighbors were complicit in making it happen.

Correction: "not" below.

Please, do NOT allow the alternative to the proposal happen: no restoration of the building. I understand some portions of the structure would be knocked down and fencing erected at the site. This will be a permanent monument to your shortsightedness should this happen. And I will be ashamed to call myself a resident of Kenmore knowing that a few of my neighbors were complicit in making it happen.

Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission: I write in support of Daniels Development and the proposed project at St. Edwards Seminary. For far too long, this significant historic place has been left to deteriorate. The Daniels proposal offers the best opportunity to re-purpose this extraordinary building into a new use that will benefit this State Park and the citizens of Washington. The proposal removes a huge maintenance burden from Parks and allows those funds to be re-directed to other needs. It supports Parks' mission through the rehabilitation of a building listed on the National Register Places, and it further contributes to economic development in the Kenmore area without sacrificing the character of the park. Indeed, St. Edwards acquires a key waterfront parcel in this proposal - a parcel already being used illegally by parks visitors. Daniels Development is experienced in the successful rehabilitation of historic properties. The St. Edward Seminary could not hope to attract a more seasoned and committed developer. I urge you to accept the EIS and the proposal under consideration. Thank you. Mary Thompson Trustee Emeritus National Trust for Historic Preservation

Please do not commercialize our park. It is perfect the way it is. It is used by runners, hikers, cyclists, and kids. Commercializing it would bring uneeded traffic. Also, it is a lousy location for a hotel. Unless they are going to completely demolish the entire park. It is not near anything. There would be no business in the winter.

As a 30+ year resident of Finn Hill, I am in support of any economically responsible project that preserves the Seminary building at St Edwards Park. I am against allowing the building to further decay or be torn down due to disrepair. Repurposing the building for commercial use should be given favorable consideration, and as quickly as possible.

Count me has hugely supportive of the Daniel’s Real Estate proposal to restore the seminary building.

I’m only sad because it has taken soooo long to get to this point.

As a follower/participant of this process for over 10 years, I commend the Department and Commission for allowing us to hope that the seminary can be restored.

PLEASE approve the proposal and let’s get the project started.

I support the proposal to lease the Seminary to Daniels Real Estate. While it may not be a perfect reuse of the historic property, it is a good compromise.

Don't build a hotel.

I was reading the information on your site about the plans for St Edwards Seminary and am in favor of the project. My family lives nearby in the Arrowhead neighborhood of Kenmore and we use the park often. It is a shame to see the seminary in such disrepair and would be nice to see it repaired and available to the public.

I am interested in knowing what Daniels Real Estate has planned for the pool at the St Edwards grounds. I have seen the drawings for the updates to the seminary and overall plans for the lodge but have not read anything about the plans for the pool.

Having moved to Kenmore about a year ago I have been in search of a nearby pool for lap swimming and swim lessons for my kids. There are not many lap pools nearby Kenmore and the one at St Edwards which used to be open to the public closed in March 2013. McMenamins over in Bothell has made the pool that they renovated as part of the Anderson school project available to the public. It would be nice to see an arrangement like this for the St Edwards pool as well if it is included in the renovation plans.

This is a statement in support of the proposal by Daniels Real Estate to rehabilitate the St. Edward’s Seminary building as a park lodge and conference center. My name is (redacted). Bishop Topel, the Bishop of Spokane, sent me to St. Edward’s Seminary in 1958 where I completed high school and, two years later, the Minor Seminary in 1962. In keeping with its long tradition, my classmates were from Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. It was a place of welcome, hospitality, prayer, contemplation, discernment, and recreation in a peaceful and beautiful 300 acre woodlands setting very much suited for the seminary community then as it is for those who visit St. Edward Park now. The preservation and rehabilitation project proposed by Daniels Real Estate is in perfect keeping with the tradition of St. Edward’s Seminary. This will not be a Disney Land with crowds of people. It will provide a perfect setting for what it has traditionally done for people who seek a welcoming, hospitable, and peaceful atmosphere for meetings, retreats, time away, contemplation, recreation, and celebration in a beautiful setting. As a resident of Spokane and Washington State taxpayer, I strongly support this new use that will be helpful in making this important State park resource more accessible to people from throughout the State. In addition to preserving an historic building, the new use proposed will enable people from around the State to visit St. Edward Park and stay a night or two to enjoy its special beauty. I believe this was the vision State Parks had in acquiring this unique property but was constrained from accomplishing it due to lack of State resources. The Daniels Real Estate proposal provides a solution to address the constraints State Parks has faced in preserving this historic site and making it available for use by any citizen of the State who chooses to enjoy it. By designation, this is a State park. It is to be available to all the residents of the State who paid for it, not a private park for only those living in its immediate vicinity. Preservation and rehabilitation of this historic facility is the best use of this property for the common good.

I strongly urge the Parks and Recreation Commission to vote against the exchange and lease agreements with Daniels Real Estate of Seattle. I've personally lived in Seattle for 20 years and Saint Edwards Park is a place that has given me countless memories. I urge voters to preserve this Park for future generations to enjoy too.

Please, no hotel at St Edward park!!! It is fine the way it is. It should not be commercialized. It is a passive park used for runners, hikers, mountain bike riders, and for kids to play. It is perfect the way it is.

I may not be able to attend the upcoming St Edwards Hotel proposal meeting on the 5th, so hoping to be another voice to keep our public spaces public. If there is somewhere better to send this let me know.

As a Finn Hill resident, and almost daily visitor to St Edwards, I would vote to bulldoze the building over handing it over to private concerns. Ideally it would be a community center, but understand that is not currently feasible.

Public places should be public. This is not a hotel at the edge of a park, it is smack dab in the center of a State Park jewel.

The only thing to be gained (for the public at least) by a hotel is the preservation of a building of dubious value. Let's be honest, this is neither an ancient building, nor important for the community at large. We have plenty of hotels already, and to compare the latest plan to national parks lodges is misleading, those were created as hotels from the start, far from population centers.

To hand it over to private interests would: - Create a constant, and likely bitter, ongoing fight over access - Limit public control over the core of one of the most important parks in WA - Be a glaring beacon of private concerns over public - Take up valuable public free space (think of what we could have in it's space) - Lock out possible future options

If there is new lands available as reported, we should have the opportunity vote for purchase of that land. Getting the land as part of a "deal" is no "deal" when selling off up the core of the park.

I am grateful for what we have, and hope future visitors/residents can be proud as well.

Lastly, my thanks to the Parks department for all their great work, especially despite shrinking budgets.

Save my park

Save st eds!

My name is (redacted) and I am a near neighbor to St. Edwards state park. I am writing to voice my strong support for the State to enter into a lease agreement with Daniels Real Estate in order for the building to be refurbished and brought back into use as a local and regional amenity. While the neighborhood impacts of an operating hotel at this location will certainly be different from the impacts of the building sitting derelict, I recognize the State has a duty to be a responsible steward of this historic resource. The last years have proven that this (or another) lease agreement are virtually the only way we have to ensure this building will not continue to decay, and I am writing to express my full support to the commissioners to execute the lease and save this building.

We appreciate the difficulties you have dealt with regarding the fate of St. Edwards Seminary building. This seems 62 year lease seems the best hope for preserving the historic landmark and the integrity of the Park itself. Please - no more delays. The Parks Planner and Mr. Daniels have done a thorough job of presenting the information all along the way.

I am completely opposed to leasing a public space to a commercial enterprise at Saint Edward State Park in Kirkland and Kenmore. In my opinion it is contrary to the mission of Washington State Parks and the Parks and Recreation Commission. You would basically be giving away a rare and priceless space of peace, quiet and woodland/shoreline habitat in the busiest urban area between San Francisco and Vancouver BC. A hotel would absolutely destroy what the park is now, a place where all people can go to escape their busy day-to-day lives in a tranquil, natural setting. Now I also hear underground parking has been eliminated from the proposal. That would result in an absolute traffic mess and further hinder public access to a public place. As a lifelong resident of this state, I am ashamed of the direction the Washington Parks and Recreation Commission has taken in favoring commercialism of our precious state park lands, not just in this case, but in multiple misguided proposals.

This park has been apart of my life ever since I was a child. I still go there at least once a week on a hike with my dogs or with my dad, or really anyone who wanted to come with. This park is so beautiful and has so many amazing memories for so many people. Putting in a hotel or whatever people plan on ruining it for, I completely disagree and wholeheartedly hope that you guys realize what your doing. This park is such a huge part of my community and I would hate to see it be demolished.

We would like to provide our comments in advance of the upcoming meeting regarding the proposal to provide a long-term lease to Daniels Real Estate to develop the St. Edward Seminary building into a hotel. First of all, thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into this process to determine the best course of action for Saint Edward State Park. This is a special place for us and for many other people. Lots of different opinions have been voiced, and everybody just wants the best future for the park. As you know, what makes this park a special place is that it is a large undeveloped public space within close proximity to such a large number of Washington residents. When we visit the park, the people that we see enjoying the park are hiking, playing on the playground, cycling, having group celebrations and many other ways of enjoying nature and being outdoors. The building that happens to be sitting on these grounds is NOT what makes the park special. We would like to highlight one specific example of an activity at the Park that we fear may be endangered under the proposed plan. At the end of each August, an organization known as “Washington Women of Cross” (Twitter handle: @WomenCX) organizes a cyclocross bicycle race on the grounds of Saint Edward State Park. While there are lots of these races held all over the state, this one is special because of its focus on women and girls. The Women Celebration Race is an opportunity for new riders to try out an exhilarating new sport, and to encourage other racers to stick with this challenging and rewarding activity. The environment at this race is very supportive and the chance to “turn the tables” on the usual male-dominated race days is important to get more girls outside and participating in physical activity. We have participated in some of the public meetings that have already been held regarding the Daniels proposal. We have understood that Daniels Real Estate has experience and passion to develop and restore historic buildings. We admire and respect that. However, we do not see that they have any experience in operating a hotel. If the path forward for the Saint Edward seminary building includes being reborn as a hotel, then it is the organization that does the day-to-day operations that will set the tone for how the grounds of the park may be used. Whether it is Daniels Real Estate that runs the hotel, or some other organization, we fear that when the time comes for the Washington Women of Cross to schedule the Women Celebration Race in August, they will find the welcome mat at St. Eds has been pulled away. That would be a real loss for the area, and a real failure of the State Parks commission and your dedication to outdoor recreation. If the decision were ours, we would be content to put a fence around the building and let it gracefully decay until such time as it could be removed. We understand that safety issues and the listing on the National Historic Register must be addressed. However, as the Seattle metropolitan area continues to grow, public green space will become so much more precious than another hotel. Please consider this again when making your decision. If the decision to move forward with the hotel plan is made, then please add binding language to the contract that will still allow for the Women’s cyclocross races and other activities that use the grounds of the park.

Please accept this message as my support for delegating the Director to enter into a 62- year lease with Daniels Real Estate Company for approximately 5.5 acres of land and including the Seminary Building located at Saint Edwards State Park. My family and I have owned property that abuts the Park since 1972 and it is our belief that the improvements proposed by Daniels Real Estate for the property, including the parking areas and the Seminary building, will be of benefit to neighboring property owners and other members of the public. Bringing a boutique hotel and a new restaurant to the area is a far better alternative to fencing the area off and letting the building continue to deteriorate. If the Seminary building is allowed to continue deteriorating it could become a further safety hazard and potentially a location for the homeless or certain illegal uses. Postponing improvements to the property will likely increase the cost of saving the Seminary building if such an undertaking were to be considered in the future.

Horrified there would even be a consideration to change this park into a tourist attraction. While a dream for the hotel owner, an absolute nightmare for the families who use and cherish this sanctuary daily/weekly. A nightmare for all of the people. Unwelcomed traffic, annoying tourism, trash, no parking, what does this bring 99% of the population? Nothing. This park is a place for family fun. Something locals can enjoy. Don't ruin it. I grew up running around the park and continue to bring my dogs weekly. I would personally be heartbroken and I know many others feel the same.

WA State Parks and Recreation Commission Attn: Director Don Hoch 1111 Israel Road S.W. Tumwater, WA 98501

Dear Mr. Hoch,

On January, 5 2017 the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will consider a 62- year lease with the developer “Daniel's Real Estate”. As the state senator from the 1st Legislative District I encourage you to support the restoration of Saint Edwards Seminary – a treasure of historic significance for the people of Washington State. It is a wonderful resource for the Kenmore community and for families across the State of Washington. Saint Edward's Seminary has a rich history that must be preserved. The alternative solution to vacate and fence the seminary grounds will disrupt the peace and solitude of the park for people and wildlife. It would be a disaster of great significance to watch this architectural beauty disintegrate before our eyes. I have toured the Seminary over the past few years and have seen the damage that has occurred over time. I was instrumental in the renovation of the gymnasium and was there for the opening ceremony. With great sadness, I have watched the deterioration of the seminary. The proposal by Kevin Daniels will bring environmental education for the children in our schools, generate needed revenue for our state parks, and be an economic driver for the City of Kenmore and the region as a whole. This architectural landmark must be preserved – if not, it would be a loss for generations to come. The historic restoration by Daniels Real Estate is an opportunity that must be acted upon. There will be few other opportunities for such important development such as the opening of McMenamins in Bothell. McMenamins has contributed greatly to the preservation of Bothell’s history. We are proud to call them a part of our community. I encourage the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to move forward and allow the City of Kenmore to take a final vote in the spring.

Sincerely,

Rosemary McAuliffe State Senator 1st Legislative District

As President of the Families for Active Parks in Kenmore (FAPK), I am writing to you in support of the proposal for the 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate for the Seminary building, associated structures, and 5.5 acre tract of land. FAPK supports this proposal as it is the best available option to preserve this historic building and will ultimately improve the state park experience for all. We feel that St. Edward State Park is the jewel of Kenmore and offers great outdoor recreation opportunities for our community. Whether our residents are enjoying a peaceful walk along the trails, time with their younger children on the wonderful playground, or a quiet moment of reflection by the lake, we feel the preservation and maintenance of this historic facility is central to an uplifting park experience. By contrast, to watch this building fall to ruin, with no realistic or feasible means for taxpayer-funded support and maintenance, is a bleak prospect. I applaud the State Park Commission and Kevin Daniels for outlining a private/public partnership that provides for the preservation of this facility and will breath new life into this treasured location.

As long term residents of Kenmore, we at FAPK have seen St. Edwards go through many changes over the years. It was once the home to our local Catholic parish church, and for the past 20 years, the home of Bastyr University. Bastyr, a private institution, has been a great resident of the adjoining park land, and adds a vibrancy to the park that makes it feel even more special. All issues associated with the additional utilization of the park have been well- managed in the past, and will be equally well-handled with the Daniel’s opportunity. Issues around parking and additional traffic are not unique to the Seminary lease proposal in Kenmore - it is something we deal with in Kenmore at the local and state level on an ongoing basis as our community continues to evolve. I’m sure that over the 62-year life of this lease, how society manages the issues related to transportation will change greatly (see the self-driving Uber initiatives in San Francisco), and should not be a deterrent to what we need to do now to preserve our historic state amenities.

The mission of FAPK is to advocate for a healthy, active community in Kenmore. We feel the adoption of the Daniels lease proposal is aligned well with our vision of a healthy Kenmore.

Thank you,

Mike Mulcare President, Families for Active Parks in Kenmore

I write to strongly support entering into the agreement with Daniels. I was born (in 1958) and raised (in the 1950's and 1960's) less than 1/2 mile from the seminary building. When it was owned by the Church no access was permitted anywhere on the grounds, and as children we were yelled at by priests whenever we approached. Now, I run in the park every week and it is a wonderful asset. The only exception are the buildings, which are slowly falling into disrepair. Allowing a contractor such as Daniels to come in an put them to good use -- and to make the Park more readily accessible to the public -- is an all around win. Please don't be dissuaded by the NIMBY's and naysayers who only want to keep the park unchanged or want it used only for their own favored purpose. Thanks for your hard work in making this happen.

My response is that the EIS rigorous and factual, the traffic report is done by a highly respected firm and shows no significant impact by this proposal on traffic. And one only has to look at the National Park System to see that a vast majority of our national parks have lodges, restaurants and other concessions. Why not St Edward?

Kevin Daniels has an excellent record of development. We are fortunate that he and his firm have developed this proposal.

Please know that friends and neighbors of mine also support the Daniels Proposal, but due to the Holidays they will likely not be able to comment or attend the meeting. Consider that I am speaking on behalf of them.

I am in favor of the staff recommendation for Saint Edwards. Years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Falls Creek Falls State Park in Tennessee. In that park, visitors have the choice to tent camp on gravel pads, camp in RVs, or stay in a fully developed vacation lodge. The range of overnight opportunities means that people of all ages, incomes, and abilities can visit the park. I have been aware of the Saint Edwards dilemma for several years. I have visited the park to walk and mountain bike. The current proposal is the most promising and positive proposal I am aware of. The seminary building would be saved and re-purposed, the park enlarged with rare (and highly expensive) lake side property including native trees, and a broader public served. Please encourage the Commission to say yes to the staff proposal.

Greetings, I have been a resident of Kenmore for more than 15 years. In that time I have often wondered what could the city and private developers do to enhance the city and attract more tourist dollars and hence revenue to the city. I believe that the proposal set forward by the Daniels Real Estate group provides just that. The proposal is the best use for this fantastic building. It will not only expand the park but potentially increase park revenue and traffic as well. Given the state of the disrepair of the building the either the city nor the state parks department has the fund to either tear it down or repair it. My fear is that if we do not allow this proposal to move ahead the building will continue to get worse until such time that the outside starts to fail and then it will get surrounded with fencing. This would end up not only being dangerous but an eyesore for those that know and love this park. Please accept this proposal and allow the Daniels Real Estate group to move ahead with this project.

I support the sale and redevelopment of the St. Edward's Seminary property. As it is now, the seminary site is a wasting asset which the State does not wish to maintain. A private developer could save the site from deterioration to a pile of rubble and add an economically vibrant asset to the community. The potential developers have a proven record of success in similar projects and are confident enough in their ability to put their own funds at risk. Based on what I have seen elsewhere, the redevelopment is feasible. I lived in the former East Germany for 15 years right after reunification and watched dozens of private developers take historic buildings in much worse shape than the seminary and put them in like-new condition. These buildings got new economic lives as housing, office, commercial, restaurant, lodging and retail space instead of being destroyed. This was a net gain to the country's wealth instead of a loss. The same could happen here. If nothing is done with the seminary building it will become a health and safety hazard that will have to be demolished at State expense. Without re-development, the State will end up paying money for simply destroying something with a valuable potential instead of receiving money for selling it. Sale and re-development simply make sense.

It makes sense to have a public-private partnership to improve the building, make it useful to the public, and have private investment help return it to it's former glory, only better. What a great place for a hotel. Also having the trail improved is an added bonus.

Overall I like the idea of giving new life to the historic Seminary building. However, I DON'T like the idea of losing green space to parking. I believe that the current proposal gives up too much green space to parking, specifically the additional parking at the east edge of the current gymnasium parking lot and the bus parking at the north end of that lot. Underground parking is a great solution. Is it possible to put ALL of the additional parking underground to preserve our green space?

Greetings; As a long-time Kenmore resident, I am enthusiastically submitting my support of the proposal put forward by the Daniel's Real Estate Group. My family has long used and appreciated St. Edward's Park, Bastyr College, and the other regional benefits of this beautiful area. As a business person and a citizen, I also can appreciate the enormous challenges that any effort to save/revitalize the seminary building and its attendant property present. We are very fortunate to have a partner in Daniel's Real Estate who will bring professionalism, expertise, and historic vision to the project. And I believe there are no other desirable options that I would consider viable. Letting the property molder and further deteriorate is not desirable. I encourage the stakeholders to move forward with this plan and give both the building and the community a better future.

My family and I would like to ask you to vote AGAINST Daniels' proposal to turn the seminary into a hotel. We are long term Kenmore and Seattle residents and believe that public interests would be best served if the park stays as public property.

Please think of our families, children and the long term benefits of retaining the park public property. The park will lose its attractiveness if it had the noise, traffic and aura of a hotel/entertainment space. The space is amazing and could benefit family and community development so much more fully if it remains public property.

More importantly, once business interests start creeping into the park, step by step, slowly and over time, there are zero guarantees that the community will not lose even more of the park. You simply cannot guarantee that.

Please vote AGAINST Daniels' proposal and protect nature and Kenmore for future generations.

I still support the development plan. I think it will enhance our park experience.

I have lived on the Eastside for over 40 years and have had many opportunities to visit and use recreational facilities at St. Edward Park. I am very much in support of allowing Daniels Real Estate to save the crumbling seminary building and turn it into a hotel. As with the recent development of Anderson School in Bothell, I hope that requirements will be put on the development to save as much of the original architecture as possible, and to allow the public to have access to the swimming pool. Rather than a crumbling, decaying pile of debris, the redevelopment could be a jewel in the area for tourists and residents alike.

Commenter:

In various meetings, you’ve mentioned the cost of “mothballing” the seminary building at St. Edward State Park. You likely have itemized amounts for the various aspects of such a project.

Can you please give me the amounts you have estimated for: 1. roof repair (not replacement) 2. gutter/downspout repair

Does the total amount that you have cited include replacing the in-wall downspouts with exterior downspouts?

Michael’s response:

The Bassetti engineering report, published in 2007, highlights roof repair but it is dated and is estimated at $517,000. The number today, maybe: $696,000 (3% compounded for inflation).

I consulted with our State Park architect and he did not think the roof repair number included downspouts. Since 2007, more downspouts have failed and so the conditions are different now, so it would be best to get a contemporary evaluation to more fully understand the scope of the problem as the building has moldered over time.

Downspouts are tricky, as you know, because there are so many ways to address the problem. If you’re thinking exterior, then you must consider materials and aesthetics when altering the façade of a historic building. An expensive approach that will require a great deal of scrutiny.

If the structure is unused, then interior downspouts could be installed with some kind of exposed pipe system (far less expensive solution).

So, if you are planning to mothball the building, I think I’d go that route, if your intention is to close the building to the public anyway. A more sophisticated downspout system could be designed in the future if the need arose. I’m afraid we do not have a number, but a call to a contractor would be a sound approach with a more reliable number.

Commenter’s response:

Am I understanding correctly then, that for a historic building such as the seminary, only the façade is of importance? No (or fewer) restrictions on the interior?

Michael’s response:

It depends on what you’re planning to do with the building. If your plan is to mothball the Seminary, that implies no public access. As a result, a simple exposed pipe system is a nice alternative as the public would never have to see such a hideous looking engineering solution! And preservationists would look at that solution as temporary and “reversible.” So no problem when mothballing.

If you were planning to rehabilitate the building for a new use—many codes are triggered. As a result, the interior would have many more preservation and engineering problems to solve in addition to storm water such as preservation of historic fabric and character defining features and seismic and structural stability and electric and plumbing and fire safety and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There’s more. picture. But you get the Rather than fewer restrictions, what you are looking at is one complicated mess when it comes to interior occupation.

Commenter:

1. Is the pile o’stuff sitting outside the St. Edward shop going to the landfill? If it wasn’t going there last week, it probably is now…since it’s been sitting in ice and rain for a week. If it’s going to the landfill anyway, is there any objection to the public saving the park the trouble of disposing it and carting off a piece or two of broken stuff.

2. The FEIS is…um…l-o-n-g, isn’t is? Does it seem reasonable that the public can actually plough through it all in such a short amount of time? Also wondering how in the world the commissioners will actually have the time to read it and thoughtfully evaluate it before their meeting. Or do they pretty much take the planners word for it that it’s A-OK?

3. Did you personally work on/approve the FEIS, or is it totally the domain of Kenmore?

Just trying to understand the process…

Michael’s response:

1. Please contact Karl Hinze at the park at (425) 823-2992. I am not sure about the current status of that effort. 2. I am not sure if you have ever met the Commissioners. They work really hard to prepare for each Commission meeting. Remember, State Parks has over 120 parks in our system. They make complicated decisions about your State Parks routinely. This is an important job they take seriously and they work very hard. By the way, they authorized this time schedule stating: “work with Daniels Real Estate to bring a lease proposal to the Commission for consideration as soon as practicable” (September 22, 2016 Saint Edward Seminary Extension—Requested Action). I want to address your statement: (Commissioners)…”pretty much take the planners word for it that it’s A-OK.” I guess that’s your observation. My own observation is that they are very intelligent, hyper-critical, free thinkers. 3. I am personally involved in facilitating the overall planning process—keep the pieces moving kind of thing. So, I attended many of meetings and helped with FEIS comments in a very limited way.

Commenter’s response:

I want to be upfront about my questions…yes, I want to understand the process…and the players. I know the horse is out of the barn, the train has left the station, the plane is in the air as far as the hotel development goes…but I want to feel that I did what I could to stay true to my vision. I have a different vision of St. Edward than does Daniels Real Estate. There are hundreds of places a person can go in Washington for crowds, noise, hubbub, traffic and parking issues. But very few places of serenity….St. Edward being one of the few. When that is lost, it is lost for good…for us and for all future generations. No do- overs on that one.

I do understand the financial burden that the seminary presents for State Parks. Seems like there could have been some middle ground. Not vacant, but not overrun with people and activity either. Yes, I know there have been YEARS to get it figured out…and only Daniels seems to have stepped up to the plate.

Yes, I have “met” the commissioners – not personally, but at recent meetings in Sequim and Yakima. I observed that they seemed to be attentive listeners. At the same time, I wondered if their minds were already made up about various issues and if letting the public speak for three minutes is just a way of checking off the “letter-of-the-law” box without much regard for the spirit-of-the-law. With so many parks, it’s hard to understand how they can be personally connected to many of them. Not as connected as a “next door neighbor” anyway. (My husband and I ARE “next door neighbors” of St. Edward SP.) I’m guessing that their decisions rarely affect them personally. If all of them were avid trail users at SESP, I think they’d have a different point of view regarding the upscale hotel/conference center.

I do worry what the future will bring now that Daniels has their “foot in the door”…asphalted, lighted trails for the convenience of conference center visitors? I’m wondering if the wording of the lease is vague enough to allow future changes and “upgrades” to the surrounding park grounds. I honestly don’t trust that they have “no plans” for the pool building or the gym. Why do they want it in the lease then? (Rhetorical question…no answer expected.) It’s difficult for an ordinary citizen to compete with a multi-million dollar company that has every expert, consultant, and attorney available at the snap of the fingers.

I will see you at Bastyr, though, on January 5th. I know you have a job to do…a huge and complicated one, and you’re doing what you need to do to accomplish it.

I’m a long time resident of Kenmore (over 45 years) and a regular user of the Park for at least 30 years. Our kids played there when they were little and later ran in cross country meets. Now our grandson enjoys the play area. In between my wife and I have walked every trail in the Park multiple times and I’ve enjoyed mountain biking with friends. I’ve also done volunteer work maintaining trails and interacted with many users. The Park is a gem, an oasis in the middle of the suburbs with undeveloped water front, an unmatched "wilderness feel” and offers an even better experience by virtue of its connection to Big Finn Hill. It provides an incredible opportunity to experience nature and it gives me great pleasure to see groups of young children playing on the equipment, hiking the trails and exploring the woods. Not only does it appeal to families, but a few weeks ago I encountered a group from the U of W on a field trip.

While I greatly value the undeveloped nature of the Park and didn’t believe McMenamins would be a good fit, I believe the current proposal for the Lodge represents the only option for saving the historic structure while having comparatively little adverse effect on the Park. As such, I strongly support it. Although the Hotel will increase traffic somewhat, parking problems seem to have been addressed in a reasonable manner. I further believe the type of clients attracted to a destination Lodge of the type proposed will have minimum impact on the Park itself. Perhaps I’m biased, but I believe people staying at the Lodge or availing themselves of fine dining aren’t likely to have much impact on the rural nature of the Park.

In summary, the choice is between tearing down the historical building or supporting the proposed Lodge. Every year that goes by the building deteriorates further. Years have been spent trying to attract compatible tenants with the deep pockets to save the structure without success. It’s time to make a decision.

I am writing in support of the lease of St. Edwards Seminary. This partnership will not just restore an important historic building, it will give it new purpose and expose a bigger public to the history and architecture of the grounds. Further, the proposed project will also provide an additional 10 acres of valuable forest habitat. The Daniels Group has a strong track record for implementing similar projects. The benefits of this proposal (financial, historic preservation, public access, public/private partnership) far outweigh any negative impact (potential for increased noise). This proposal truly benefits the citizens of Washington State.

My name is (redacted) and I and my wife (redacted) are residents of Finn Hill. I would like to voice our support of the development plan presented in the recent Seattle Times article and under consideration at the January 4th special hearing. We visit St. Ed's almost daily during the summer and are very excited at the possibility of having a lodge-style hotel go into those beautiful buildings. Also we'd love to see the pool reopened to the public if at all possible as part of this deal. Please support the development plan!

I’m a resident of Kenmore Washington, a Discovery Pass holder, and I use St. Edwards State Park at least once a week. I’d like to submit my comments for your consideration.

• I’m for the lease to Daniels Real Estate. While having a private business in the middle of the public park may not be optimal, this is a best case scenario opportunity for restoration of the seminary. Preservation of the building and its history will benefit generations to come. • State Parks should benefit from additional revenue from lodge customers purchasing daily and yearly Discovery Passes. I hope this will be a financial boost for other parks across the state. • There are no other viable options for restoration of the deteriorating seminary. • Restoration of the pool would be a tremendous benefit to the local community.

Having worked as a preservation professional in Washington state for 20 years and as a Washington state tax payer, I fully support Daniels Real Estate proposal for the adaptive re-use of the Saint Edward State Park Seminary property. The plan will not only result in the preservation of a historically and architecturally significant property, but also allow for public access and use of this magnificent cultural resource for everyone. I urge WA State Parks & the project proponent to cooperatively move forward to ensure completion of this wonderful proposal.

Commenter:

Do have any other visuals available you could send me? Maybe what the proposed renovations would look like, etc.

I have a call in with Daniels as well.

Thanks for your help.

Michael:

There are no renderings of what the renovations would like—that is something that would come in the design phase. Sorry about that.

Michael

Commenter:

Last request (I hope),

Do you have a picture of yourself we can use to put over your sound in the story?

Thanks,

Michael, I have been working all afternoon trying to make it easier for people to find the agenda and documents for the January 5 meeting. People are telling me they are difficulty finding them on the website. Nothing is easy. Going to Commissioner meeting agenda everything is in a continuous agenda document. Therefore, it takes time to get to what you want. I was able to copy and paste the Lease that people were having trouble finding but could not copy and paste Appendix 5. Why do you have to make it so difficult? The link to the agenda in the the attached addendum notice does not work. I ried to email you from your email address link on that page. It does not work!! Where will the information on forms that those who use the large Provide Comments go???

I finally found links to the items after using the link in this email and searching to the bottom. However, most of us do not see that link very often and use the Commissioner Agenda page to access agenda items. It would be nice to have a link to http://bit.ly/saintedward on the Commissioner agenda page so people can easily find what they are looking for. Or even best, to have links to the separate items on that page. Why make it so difficult for those not familiar with the website find information? I find the State Parks website to be confusing and I use it often. I'm sure those who seldom access it find it very frustrating. We both know the email communications from Planning go to a small percent of the population interested in Saint Edward State Park. I do not have time to check to see if http://bit.ly/saintedward is on the Saint Edward State Park page. I tried to put the link to Exhibit 6 in a word document, but when it is opened, it is in code. Again why???

Thought you should know. Now to go enjoy being with my two youngest grandchildren!

I am requesting a brief tour of the seminary building on behalf of Citizens For Saint Edward State Park. We would like to have an architect and developer who has personal experience with Graham buildings help us evaluate the viability of proposals Citizens is considering presenting to the Park Commission. Thursday December 1 in the afternoon and Friday December 2 after 2:30 are currently available for our adviser Brian Fyall. I would be in attendance as well as another member from Citizens.

Please let me know if this is something you can do for us.

Becki, Attached for the Commissioners is a memo regarding the flawed study for proposed parking changes at Saint Edward State Park. Please send to the Commissioners ASAP.

I sent another document on December 23. Did you receive that and were you able to send it on to the Commissioners?

I hope you had a nice Christmas and enjoyed yesterday off.

Thanks for taking care of this.

Citizens for Saint Edward State Park Citizens Memorandum: Parking

December 5, 2016

Parking in St. Edward State Park requires in-depth study and EIS evaluation. The effects of the ballfield proposal and Daniel’s “Lodge” should be studied both in concert and separately. It is not known if one or both projects will be accepted. The submitted studies regarding parking are shallow- lacking depth and analysis. It is incredulous to Citizens that the park planners accepted the reports. Following are issues concerning the parking report on which the city is relying.

KENMORE BALLFIELDS PROPOSAL

The City of Kenmore is applying to the Park Commission to build artificial turf playing fields in Saint Edward State Park that will have impacts on the existing parking inventory. These impacts will be significant on weekends when general public parking demand is intense. Fehr & Peer report fails to identify the following issues. The Park Commission should carefully consider the following issues.

a. PARKING AT CAPACITY NOW: Parking is often at or near capacity on sunny weekend days now.

i. A discussion with the park ranger would have revealed this to Fehr and Peers.

b. ONE DAY STUDY: The report examines just one weekend day. It is a one day snapshot. This is presumed to be enough study in the park to understand the ebb and flow of visitors.

i. The report does not acknowledge that parking is occasionally at or beyond capacity now. ii. The report makes no mention of any discussion with the park ranger regarding current parking conditions.

c. FIELD TURNOVER PARKING LOADS: Peak parking requirements for two simultaneous games is 36 vehicles (page 11). This counts only players who are playing. The report ignores the tendency of players to arrive well in advance of the game they are scheduled to play. Players will arrive early (routinely a full half hour before a game) and warm up before they take the field.

d. TOURNAMENT PARKING DEMAND: What are the parking requirements during baseball and soccer tournaments? The report is silent. e. SOCCER: Fehr & Peers did not calculate parking needs for soccer, which is a proposed use.

i. Soccer teams are bigger. ii. Soccer games attract extended family to view games. iii. Soccer teams may require more parking than baseball teams.

f. OVERFLOW PARKING LOT: The ballfield will be built on a very significant overflow parking lot. The new ballfield will not be suitable for parking cars or vehicles on the new surface. There is no description of which events that have historically used the ballfield site for overflow parking or event space will find this new venue unsuitable.

g. “LODGE” USE OF PUBLIC PARKING SPACES: The effect of lodge visitors parking in the general public parking area is not addressed. It is assumed in the Fehr & Peers study (page 9) that the lodge parking effects will be mitigated. While assumed to be true, it is not proven or verified by Fehr & Peers how Daniels will mitigate for this. Daniels could pay a mitigation fee that is used to reduce parking impacts elsewhere in the city or the city might decide it does not warrant mitigation since the lodge is a legitimate park attraction. The point is the effects of lodge visitors on the general parking and the ballfield users is not evaluated or understood. It is accepted on faith that Daniel’s Lodge will not impact ballfield users’ parking needs. This is inadequate analysis.

h. CHANGING PARK USER DEMOGRAPHIC: How will the new ballfields affect the current park user population? Will ballfield users reduce park visits by traditional park visitors by better competing for limited parking? These questions are not addressed in the ballfields report.

i. When the lots are full which user group is likely to persist, and get parking spaces?

ii. Very likely the ball field users will arrive earlier and occupy available parking before the general public.

iii. Ballfield users may very well arrive and depart in waves which could make it easier for ballfield users to preclude the general public.

i. The report is silent about how future park commissions should deal with the immediate and future parking needs.

Park planners have much to consider regarding parking before they should endorse the City of Kenmore’s ballfields proposal. SEMINARY BUILDING

An in-depth study of the current parking situation in the park, the effects of Daniel’s “Lodge” on typical park users and the effects of the proposed baseball field improvements all need to be studied together. Future parking needs without either a lodge or new ballfields also need to be studied. Following are issues that need further evaluation and consideration by the park planners and the Park Commission.

The parking study by Heffron Transportation, a Technical Memorandum dated July 11, 2016, should be discarded. A new study should be performed. Lodge and conference center visitors are members of the public who will come primarily to visit the lodge or conference center. These will not be passive park visitors. 1. The Heffron Technical Memorandum report uses as a template for parking demand, Cedarbrook Lodge. Heffron used on-site observations at Cedarbrook Lodge in January 2013. Cedarbrook Lodge is 0.8 miles from SeaTac Airport. a. Visitors to this facility often arrive by free lodge shuttle and taxi. This makes a very poor template to draw parking demand conclusions for a suburban St. Edward Seminary Conference Center. The report acknowledges the taxi phenomenon. b. The observed time period at Cedarbrook was January 2013. This represented a low season and still a recessionary time period for Seattle. c. The local economy is much improved since 2013. Visitor volumes are likely to be higher in 2018.

2. The Heffron Technical Memorandum makes no mention of interviewing the park ranger for parking or traffic information. The memorandum is missing that basic understanding of parking and traffic conditions

3. The study is silent regarding lodge and conference users using the parking lots set aside for the public. a. Mr. Daniels, in a public meeting in Kenmore in the spring of 2016 at the Kenmore Community Center, stated that lodge parking lot security would be on site, to keep the public from using the lodge parking lots but he would offer no protection to the park from lodge users using the public lots. b. It will be very difficult to monitor and perhaps inappropriate for the park ranger to deny lodge visitors use of the parking lots during regular business hours. This lodge will be a new park attraction.

4. The Heffron Technical Memorandum suggests that the lodge will on occasion need parking in excess of what is being built for the lodge. The report is silent about: a. Conference visitors use of public parking spaces: On busy days, conference center visitors are likely to arrive before public visitors and will be inclined to take more convenient public parking spaces. i. Daniels has stated publicly that he has no plans to prevent this from happening. The statement was made at the Community Center in Kenmore in the spring of 2016. b. Parking shortages, when they occur, will discourage traditional park patrons. c. The Heffron Technical Memorandum suggests that the geographically distant Bastyr University will provide overflow parking for the lodge when needed. i. No written evidence of a parking agreement was provided. ii. No durable agreement with Bastyr was provided or discussed. d. What happens when the $50 Million lodge has a big conference event and there is nothing but public parking available because Bastyr does not have it available? This question is not answered.

5. The Heffron Technical Memorandum does not describe how or if the lodge and conference center visitors will be compelled to park in the distant Bastyr parking lots instead of the public parking lots.

6. The Heffron Technical Memorandum does not analyze the existing parking capacity problems at St. Edward State Park. Parking is often at capacity on nice days and weekends, the lodge and conference center will bring additional visitors, who will use the public parking lots despite the additional parking the developer is providing. a. The traditional public user will be marginalized in the future. The park planners should study and understand how the composition of the park population will change under the Daniel’s plan. b. Section 2.6 of the Heffron report states “The existing surface lot for the park has capacity to accommodate 127 automobiles and five buses.” Existing parking in reality exceeds 200 cars. This is an error. What kind of parking analysis did Heffron do?

7. The Heffron Technical Memorandum did not analyze the future parking requirements of the park. The parking lots are often at capacity now. How will expanding demand for parking be met in the next 5, 10 and 20 years? The park is running out of good places to build new parking lots if indeed it has not already. a. The park will soon reach the point of parking lot saturation: too much asphalt, too few meadows and trees around the seminary building. There is no consideration of the tradeoffs of building more parking lots and losing recreational area. As we accommodate more visitors we destroy the reason the visitors come to the park. b. What is the cost in lost natural resources for each parking space created vs. the benefit of the additional parking space and increased access? At some point the lodge will lose much as new parking lots are built.

8. The Heffron Technical Memorandum does not reference the City of Kenmore Municipal Code Chapter 18.40 and the parking requirements the City of Kenmore would normally place on a hotel conference center. This author estimates the City of Kenmore would require about 330 parking spaces for a hotel conference center of this size according to KMC code. Daniels proposes building 153 parking spaces, less than half what the Kenmore Municipal Code appears to require. How is this disparity in code and actual proposed parking explained? From the Heffron report we have “16,600 square feet (sf) of meeting rooms”. The City of Kenmore Municipal code 18.040.030 indicates 1 (parking space) per 3 fixed seats, plus 1 (parking space) per 50 square feet used for assembly purposes without fixed seats, or 1 per bedroom, whichever results in the greater number of spaces. Presumably a “meeting room” is the same as conference space and used for assembly purposes. The parking requirements for the Daniels Conference Center in Kenmore is 16,600 divided by 1 parking space per 50 square feet = 332 parking spaces. 16,600 /50 = 332 parking spaces. “The project would add 153 parking spaces at the site, including 87 in an underground garage and 66 surface spaces.” A design shortfall of 332 KMC-153 provided=179 space shortage if the KMC 18.040.030 is a sensible metric. This parking metric is not unusual. There is no calculation for the restaurant or spa facility. It is not certain they would be counted in this instance; it might be presumed that conference center visitors would be the only patrons of the restaurant and spa.

Below is the referenced Kenmore Municipal Code 18.40.030 table below. Irrelevant categories were deleted. The link to KMC municipal code. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kenmore/#!/Kenmore18/Kenmore1840.html#18.40.030

18.40.030 Computation of required off-street parking spaces. A. Except as modified in KMC 18.40.040, 18.40.050 or 18.40.090, off-street parking areas shall contain at a minimum the number of parking spaces as stipulated in the following table. Off-street parking ratios expressed as number of spaces per square feet means the usable or net square footage of floor area, exclusive of nonpublic areas. Nonpublic areas include but are not limited to building maintenance areas, storage areas, closets, restrooms and exterior walls. If the formula for determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, the number of off-street parking spaces shall be rounded to the nearest whole number with fractions of 0.50 or greater rounding up and fractions below 0.50 rounding down.

MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Citywide, Except in Downtown Commercial MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED and Downtown Residential Zones West of Downtown Commercial and Downtown Residential LAND USE 68th Avenue NE Zones West of 68th Avenue NE

Conference center 1 per 3 fixed seats, plus 1 per 50 square feet 1 per 3 fixed seats, plus 1 per 50 square feet used used for assembly purposes without fixed for assembly purposes without fixed seats, or 1 per seats, or 1 per bedroom, whichever results bedroom, whichever results in the greater number in the greater number of spaces of spaces

Restaurants 1 per 75 square feet in dining or lounge 1 per 75 square feet in dining or lounge areas areas

The KMC 18.040.030 goes on to state that. B. An applicant may request a modification of the minimum required number of parking spaces by providing a parking demand analysis demonstrating that parking demand can be met with a reduced parking requirement. In such cases, the city manager may approve a reduction of up to 50 percent of the minimum required number of spaces.

As of today’s date, the city manager reports that no such modification has been requested by the applicant.

The City of Kenmore is applying with the Park Commission to build artificial turf playing fields in the park that will have impacts on the existing parking inventory. These impacts will be significant on weekends and for the loss of the overflow parking for which the field is currently used. The ballfield proposal should be studied in conjunction with the parking inventory demands the lodge will place on the public parking. These are both projects championed by the City of Kenmore. Both are large investments for the park that together will have cumulative impacts that responsible planning should require be studied and understood.

Once built and in place, the parking needs of these two facilities will command attention. The lodge and ballfields can be expected to dominate and take precedence over public parking needs. Daniels and the City of Kenmore are bringing large investments to the park and will in a very real sense bring a pay-to- play or in this case pay-to-park mentality to the parking lot inventory. These investments will not be allowed to sour and go fallow because the public visitor needs to park. The public visitor, who is not paying millions of dollars to build new attractions in the park, will be squeezed out of parking in the park on busy hotel and ballfield days. The public parking lot user has no paid advocates to lobby state parks or the city for parking lot access. The ballfield users and the hotel owners have ample resources to get the parking their facilities need. Hopefully, more paved parking lots is not the solution.

The lodge conference center will lose an important big event parking lot when the new ballfields are built. Currently, in summer months, the grass field that will be the new artificial turf field is used as a big events parking lot. The new ballfield cannot be used as a parking lot. Summer availability of this grass lot is very helpful now and would be very useful for big hotel events. In the spring, it is too wet to use as a grass parking lot. This opportunity is not mentioned in Heffron Technical Memorandum but by reason of proximity has to be a consideration. Will the Daniels Lodge be adversely impacted when the grass overflow field is removed?

To summarize, the two parking reports need to be disregarded and a new comprehensive report needs to be ordered. Both reports are inadequate and should have been rejected by park planners and administrators. We ask that a more realistic parking study be done by an independent consultant that will more accurately reflect the current use of Saint Edward State Park from May through September when weather is optimal for outdoor recreation. This could also be a peak time for out-of-state conferences and hotel visitors to enjoy our beautiful Pacific Northwest.

Lastly, an approval of either application by the City of Kenmore only means that the proposal works for the City of Kenmore. It behooves park planners to evaluate all reports and approvals by the City of Kenmore with skepticism. The goals of the city, essentially a co-applicant in both proposals, do not always coincide with the goals and mission of Washington State Parks. This especially true regarding the core value “Dedication to outdoor recreation and public enjoyment that welcomes all our citizens to their public parks.” The public who make Saint Edward State Park one of the most popular in the state need more consideration for their continued ability to use the park. Will our citizens be pushed out of the park by out-of-state conference attendees because they cannot find parking? How will even small local conferences of 150-200 people impact public parking? This needs to be resolved, a task the Heffron study does not adequately address.

CITIZENS FOR SAINT EDWARD STATE PARK BOARD OF DIRECTORS [email protected] et 425-823-6089

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

Re. Proposed Parking for Saint Edward State Park December 27, 2016 Dear Commissioners Milner, Brown, Peters, Bounds, Lantz, Schmidt and Whaley,

The board of directors of Citizens for Saint Edward State Park, on behalf of our members, has directed (redacted) to write the following memorandum regarding parking at Saint Edward State Park. We have reviewed and unanimously support this document. We ask that you carefully consider the contents as you consider leasing a major part of the park to a private entity for 62 years.

I apologize for sending this to you so long after Peter wrote it. I misunderstood him and thought he had sent it to Michael Hankinson and Daniel Farber earlier this month. Upon your review, representatives of Citizens of Saint Edward State Park would like to meet with two or three Commissioners to discuss the issues raised in the following document. With the upcoming special meeting on January 5, meeting at the Park before that meeting would be a convenient time for all. Please have park staff let us know if this is possible.

Best Regards,

cc Daniel Farber; Michael Hankinson

From: Susan Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 10:43 AM To: Herzog, Peter (PARKS) Subject: Susan - SESP ELC Weekly Update

Hi Peter,

I hope your week is off to a good start and you are enjoying today's crystal clear weather, at least looking at it through the window as I am. Thank you for your note last Friday on how the Daniel's lease is shaping up. Things are indeed moving along. I am doing my best on my end to send you a more/less weekly update to keep channels of communication flowing. Below includes news for this week. As always, my apologies for the length, just a lot going on.

1 - Islandwood Site Visit - I will be hosting Islandwood's Director of Education, John Haskin, Director of Urban Programs, Kate Bedient, and Coordinator of IW's satellite program at the King County Brightwater Treatment facility, Derek Jones on a EE teaching and learning scouting tour of SESP this Thursday, 12/8. Ranger Karl is rearranging his schedule to provide a tour of the building to allow the Islandwood team to get a sense of the classrooms and spaces. I honored that John and his team are even willing to come all the way out from Bainbridge to SESP and am hopeful interest will be strong, we all have our fingers crossed weather will permit.

2 - Dr. David Stokes and UW Bothell - I hiked the park last Saturday with Dr. David Stokes, environmental science faculty at UW - Bothell, to identify teaching, learning, research, monitoring and stewardship opportunities in the Park of which there are Many. Amazing what you see differently when you look at the resource(s) from this perspective. Dave was quite enthusiastic about the opportunity to bring some of this to life through an environmental learning center/partnership at SESP and also talked about opportunities for UW - Bothell to play a role in this collaborative. Of course, this would be a lengthy conversation but the seed is planted.

3 - ELC Partnership Framework Document - I am still feeling challenged with how all of this is going to come together from a partnership perspective and believe we need some sort of framework/guidance document which articulates the challenge to engage increasingly urban and diverse audiences, ELC mission, priority goals/objectives, etc. to really move this forward. The ELC Concept Paper I wrote up last fall provides a start but it is hardly a finished and approved product. You and I talked about the new Statewide Acquisition and Development Strategy (SADS) as providing a foundation of an overall update to the SESP CAMP plan which could also include guidance for EE and interpretation at Saint Ed.

4 - Three distinct proposals advancing at SESP - I had also expressed concerns that there are currently three distinct activities proposed for SESP--hotel, ball fields and ELC -- all of which are moving forward simultaneously without a master plan. Again, it seemed an update of the SESP CAMP to align with the SADS could provide a foundation and framework for some variation or adaptation of these activities to co-exist for the best long term outcome for the park and its users. I also believe that Islandwood and other potential EE providers, would be reassured to know that an update the overall park management plan may be forthcoming.

I am wondering how the conversation on alignment of the SESP CAMP with the new SADS document can best move forward.

5) Public Outreach for SESP beyond Kenmore - I am taking the liberty to share my additional concern that there has been very little outreach/effort to gather public input (on the hotel, ball fields, possibilities for an ELC) beyond the Kenmore city limits. We live just over the Kenmore/Kirkland boundary off Holmes Point Road. I, and none of my neighbors, have received any general communication from State Parks or the City of Kenmore on pending activities at SESP. My immediate neighbors continue to be completely unaware of the proposals in play. Very few people in Kirkland and/or anyone outside of Kenmore (Bothell, Woodenville, Lake Forest Park, North Shore, Seattle) have much of any idea of what's unfolding in their State Park. I believe the long term best interests of SESP, its many visitors from across the region and state, trust in WA State Parks, and the Daniels proposal for that matter, would be better served through a broad and intentional effort on public outreach and engagement.

Part of my issue is that while I am strongly motivated to support development of the ELC, there continues to be a great deal of concern (and mistrust) in the Daniels and ball fields proposals. It is difficult for me to to navigate the building out of an ELC which will include participation of a variety of partners without the backing of Parks to engage in conversation with Kirkland and other regional communities.

I am happy to help in whatever way I can on the public outreach front, however I obviously can not currently do so in a professional staff capacity. I therefore come back to the possibility of a general update and alignment of the SESP CAMP to the new Statement Parks Acquisition and Development Strategy as a possible way to frame a robust community conversation for the long term outcomes at SESP.

I am wide open to your thoughts on all of this.

Again, my apologies for the lengthy note. Have a great week, looking forward to hearing from you soon.

All my best,

Susan

On Dec 9, 2016, at 3:15 PM, "Herzog, Peter (PARKS)" wrote:

Hi Susan, is there a chance we can set up a phone call next week? I’ve been at a Commission retreat this past week and am taking the day off today to play in the slush with my kids (I live on a bit of hill so we actually got quite a bit of snow). I am working on ways we might incorporate Commission direction on the urban gateway approach outlined in the Statewide Acquisition and Development Strategy into the Commission’s consideration of the seminary lease proposal now scheduled for January 5th. Still in discussion, but making progress….

I’ll ask Srey to work with you to set up a time with Michael H. and me, but if you could suggest some times when you are available, that would help out a lot. I may have some time between 11:30 and 2:00pm on Monday and Wednesday morning before noon.

Let me know and thanks again for your weekly updates. I’m really hopeful we can thread this all together into a great environmental learning opportunity for the public’s (and the planet’s) benefit.

Peter

From: Susan Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:37 AM To: Herzog, Peter (PARKS) Cc: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS); Ryser, Sreytouch (PARKS) Subject: Re: SELP ELC update

Hi Peter and Michael,

So sorry to miss you this AM. I was actually looking for a email from Srey with call in info and time you wanted to try to talk. As I didn't see anything, I figured you had gotten busy and this call had been bumped. I decided to get my day underway a little earlier and am on the bus headed in for meeting # 1.

I could and would very much like to talk with you both about how best to bring forward consideration of Gateway frameworks/approaches at the 1/5 meeting. The Islandwood site visit went well. They are interested and, as mentioned, earlier, there is significant risk involved. I think it would help Islandwood, as well as any other NGO we may try to attract, to understand the structure they may be able to be a part of.

I am booked the rest of the day today and tomorrow but could talk Friday AM 9:00, 9:30, 10:00.

To help make sure we catch one another, just let me know what time works best for you and I will be standing by then.

With warm regards, Susan

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Herzog, Peter (PARKS) wrote:

Susan, please Peter a call @ 10:00 - 360-902-8652

From: Susan Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 7:40 PM To: Herzog, Peter (PARKS) Cc: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: Re: SESP ELC Update

Hi Peter and Michael

I am looking forward to talking with you both tomorrow morning at 10:00.

til then. my best Susan

To: Bridgit Baker Subject: Re: Notice of Final EIS for the Lodge at Saint Edward PRJ16-0043

Dear Ms Baker

Thank you for this notice of availability of the Final EIS. I used the link embedded in your email, it took me to the Kenmore.gov site. The documents posted on this site only a link to the Draft EIS. I'm not sure what I am missing, however, can you please let me know where the Final EIS is actually to be found. If I can't locate it, it is not really available to me or anyone for that matter.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you and actually located the FEIS as soon as possible.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Bridgit Baker wrote:

You are being sent this mailer because you have been listed as a Party of Interest for the project. Attached please find the Notice of Final EIS.

Thank you,

Bridgit Baker Administrative Assistant

City of Kenmore 18120 68th Ave NE Kenmore WA 98028

[email protected] Tel: 425-398-8900

From: Pollet, Rep. Gerry Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:18 AM Cc: Hoch, Don (PARKS) Subject: Re: Saint Edward State Park Seminary – State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

Daniel, In the FEIS, I do not see either a parking alternative 2 map and schematic, or view of the parking structure. Can you point to where those are? Also, is there a discussion of mitigation reducing loss of trees and "vegetated space" under Alternative one, or is the sole alternative discussed having additional parking on top of the lot? Finally, in the schematics, I was looking to see if there was 1,000 sq foot space identified for environmental education center use. Can you tell me where that is?

Gerry Representative Gerry Pollet 46th District (Northeast and North Seattle, Lake Forest Park and Kenmore) (360)786-7886 Olympia / (206)729-3242 District Office when out of session [email protected] Subscribe to my email list here! Would you like to discuss issues with me in person? I know most residents of the 46th can't go to Olympia to speak with me during the Session. So, please join me at my "Traveling Town Hall' every Saturday morning during Session; and once a month when we are out of Session: Traveling Town Halls are drop-in, in-district office hours at different locations around the district on Saturday mornings from 10-12. Check where upcoming Traveling Town Halls will be on my homepage: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Gerry-Pollet/http; or, email me.

From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 12:28:47 PM Cc: Hoch, Don (PARKS) Subject: Saint Edward State Park Seminary – State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

Dear Members and Staff,

As you see below, a decision point by the Parks and Recreation Commission on the St. Edward Seminary project is set for January 5, 5:30pm at the Bastyr University campus. Links for the FEIS on the project and the upcoming draft lease and staff recommendation are also referenced below.

If you have any questions or concerns please let me know.

Regards,

Daniel

Daniel Farber Policy and Governmental Affairs Director Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, Washington 98504-2650 Tel: (360) 902-8504 Mobile: (360) 701-5326 FAX: (360) 586-6580 E-mail: [email protected]

This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.

From: Washington State Parks Planning Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:17 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS); Logan, Jessica (PARKS) Subject: Saint Edward State Park Seminary – State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

FROM: Jessica Logan, Environmental Program Manager

SUBJECT: Saint Edward State Park Seminary – State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will consider authorizing the State Parks director to enter a 62-year lease agreement with Daniels Real Estate of Seattle for the Seminary building at a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, January 5th at Bastyr College, 14500 Juanita Drive N.E., Kenmore.

The draft lease document will be posted on the State Parks website December 22, 2016. Written comments for Commission review in advance of the meeting will be taken until December 30th, 5:00 p.m.

The City of Kenmore published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) regarding the St. Ed. Seminary rehabilitation proposal on December 16, 2016. The document is located on Kenmore’s website at: http://www.kenmorewa.gov/LodgeatSaintEdward

Submit email comments to [email protected] or by mail to: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Attention: Michael Hankinson, Parks Planner PO Box 42650, Olympia WA 98504-2650 Phone: (360) 902-8671 FAX: (360) 586-0207

From: Bridgit Baker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:22 AM Cc: Bridgit Baker Subject: Lodge at Saint Edward Public Hearing

We are scheduling the Public Hearing for the Lodge at Saint Edward regarding both the Site Plan type 4 and SEPA appeals (if there are any) on Friday, January 27, 2017 starting at 10am. This will be held in our Council Chambers at City Hall, 18120 68th Ave NE, Kenmore WA. I will be mailing/emailing out a public notice for the hearing date/location in the coming days. I just wanted to let you know in advance. Thank you,

Bridgit Baker Administrative Assistant

City of Kenmore 18120 68th Ave NE Kenmore WA 98028 [email protected] Tel: 425-398-8900

From: Chris Moore [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:02 AM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: FW: Advocacy Alert: Saint Edward Final Meeting

FYI – this went out to our email list.

Best, Chris

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

From: Washington Trust for Historic Preservation [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Washington Trust for Historic Preservation Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:07 AM To: Chris Moore Subject: Advocacy Alert: Saint Edward Final Meeting

(attachment below)

Save our Saint Edward State Park Seminary! View this email in your browser

Save our Saint Edward State Park Seminary

January 5th is the last opportunity to make our voices heard!

The Saint Edward State Park Seminary is at a critical juncture: after several years of diligent work by Washington State Parks to find a preservation solution for the Seminary Building in Saint Edward State Park, a plan is on the table. Parks and Recreation Commissioners will decide whether to move forward with a proposal submitted by Daniels Real Estate or to let the building deteriorate. This decision will be made at a special meeting to be held January 5, 2017 in the Chapel at Bastyr College.

Daniels Real Estate is proposing to rehabilitate the National Register-listed Seminary building as a park lodge and conference center. The Daniels proposal also includes acquiring 10 additional acres of forest land for park use – an important acquisition Park officials have sought for years. Your presence and voice is needed as the commissioners consider this proposal. Please join Washington Trust staff on January 5th in attending the hearing to offer public testimony in support of the preservation plan!

Saint Edward Seminary Final Hearing January 5, 2017 - 6:00pm (best to arrive by 5:45pm) Bastyr College Chapel 14500 Juanita Drive NE Kenmore, WA 98028

As a State Park, Saint Edward’s exists for all Washingtonians to enjoy. Rehabilitation of the seminary building aligns with Washington State Park’s mission to serve as a steward for historic and cultural resources. Moreover, the Daniels project will remove an estimated $50 million from State Parks' backlog of deferred maintenance. Please attend the meeting and voice your support for preservation of the Seminary Building!

If you know that you absolutely cannot make it to the public meeting, please consider submitting comments about the project online. (Scroll down to find the "Provide Comments" link, select "Saint Edward Planning - Seminary" as the Planning Project, and fill out the rest of the form with your info and comments.)

Please forward this advocacy alert to others who support saving the Saint Edward Seminary Building.

For more information about this history of this project and access to public documents, please visit the Washington State Parks website.

Copyright © 2016 Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, All rights reserved. You received this email because you are a member or friend of the Washington Trust.

Our mailing address is: Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 1204 Minor Ave. Seattle, WA 98101

From: Catherine Krummey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:36 AM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS); Painter, Virginia (PARKS) Subject: Saint Edward Seminary Lease

Hello,

I am just checking in to make sure the agenda for the Jan. 5 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is still going to be posted today, as the release you sent out earlier this month about the meeting indicated that would be the case.

Thanks,

Catherine

Catherine Krummey Reporter Direct: 425-318-7651 Internal: 55232 Fax: 425-822-0141 11630 Slater Avenue NE, Ste 9, Kirkland, WA 98034

Sound Publishing, Inc.

On Dec 22, 2016 1:12 PM, "Hankinson, Michael (PARKS)" wrote:

Hello Catherine,

The plan is to post the agenda today in the afternoon. A few more meetings must take place. I’ll drop a quick note to you when we’re ready.

Michael

Michel Hankinson Parks Planner Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1111 Israel Road SW Olympia WA 98501

From: Catherine Krummey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 1:40 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: RE: Saint Edward Seminary Lease

Thanks for the update. On Dec 22, 2016 2:06 PM, "Hankinson, Michael (PARKS)" wrote: Catherine,

Please find attached the agenda item. It is not a draft, but rather the final that will be posted on our website. Thank you for your patience.

Michael

From: Catherine Krummey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:20 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: RE: Saint Edward Seminary Lease

Thanks for sending this.

Two quick follow-up questions:

Does approval of this have to be unanimous at the commission meeting on Jan. 5?

Will there be time allotted for public comment at the Jan. 5 meeting?

Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 3:34 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Cc: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) Subject: St. Edward State Park

Mr. Hankinson,

I do not see a link to the full appraisals on the state web site. Being a computer klutz I suspect me, user error. At any rate can you direct me to all of the appraisals not the summaries in the meeting agenda. The $1,500,000 seems astonishingly high for the market valuation.

Are you familiar with the FEIS from Kenmore, have you had time to read it? If you have read it I am wondering if you support the cities observations and conclusions?

Lastly will you be answering email next week?

From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:57 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: FW: St. Edward State Park

Do you have this covered?

Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 3:34 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Cc: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) Subject: St. Edward State Park

Mr. Hankinson,

I do not see a link to the full appraisals on the state web site. Being a computer klutz I suspect me, user error. At any rate can you direct me to all of the appraisals not the summaries in the meeting agenda. The $1,500,000 seems astonishingly high for the market valuation.

Are you familiar with the FEIS from Kenmore, have you had time to read it? If you have read it I am wondering if you support the cities observations and conclusions?

Lastly will you be answering email next week?

From: Patrick Quinn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 4:02 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: RE: map of Saint Edward showing McDonald Property and North Trail

Hey Michael,

Last request (I hope),

Do you have a picture of yourself we can use to put over your sound in the story?

Thanks,

Patrick Quinn Reporter KOMO News 615-260-7441 [email protected]

From: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 12:46 PM To: Patrick Quinn Subject: RE: map of Saint Edward showing McDonald Property and North Trail

Hi Patrick,

There are no renderings of what the renovations would like—that is something that would come in the design phase. Sorry about that.

Michael

From: Patrick Quinn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 12:16 PM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: Re: map of Saint Edward showing McDonald Property and North Trail

Do have any other visuals available you could send me? Maybe what the proposed renovations would look like, etc.

I have a call in with Daniels as well.

Thanks for your help. Patrick Quinn Reporter KOMO News [email protected] 615-260-7441

From: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:54:57 AM To: Patrick Quinn Subject: map of Saint Edward showing McDonald Property and North Trail

Michael Hankinson Parks Planner Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1111 Israel Road SW Olympia WA 98504

(360) 902-8671

Will the meeting be in the auditorium?

------Original Message ------

From: Washington State Parks Planning To: Michael Hankinson (PARKS) Sent: December 22, 2016 at 3:56 PM Subject: Saint Edward Seminary Lease - Requested Action The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 5, at the Bastyr College, 14500 Juanita Drive NE, Kenmore, Washington. At the meeting, the Commission will consider delegating authority to the Director to enter into a 62-year lease with Daniels Real Estate for a 5.5-acre tract of land, including the Seminary building and associated structures, at Saint Edward State Park. The meeting will begin with an executive session at 5:30 p.m., after which the public meeting will commence at 6:00 p.m. Members of the public are welcome to attend, and will have an opportunity to provide comment. If you want to provide comment regarding the item please send it to [email protected] before December 30th, 2016 by 5:00 p.m.

The item will be posted at http://bit.ly/ParksAgendas prior to the Commission meeting.

If you have questions about this agenda item or wish to receive a copy, please contact:

Michael Hankinson, Parks Planner Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504-2650 Phone: (360)902-8671 FAX: (360) 586-0207 e-mail: [email protected]

To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: Save st Eds from developers

https://www.change.org/p/washington-state-parks-commission-save-st-edwards-state-park

Save St. Edwards State Park

Leanne Hust Kenmore, WA

2,947 Supporters

St. Edwards State Park, a sanctuary of the native northwest environment in a rapidly urbanizing region, must remain forever publicly owned and preserved in its entirety. St. Edwards' buildings must remain completely dedicated to non-profit public use, for the needy, for education and for the arts, whether restored, partially restored or returned to open space. Daybreak Star, Centrum, El Centro de la Raza and Youngstown Cultural Arts offer working models. Washington Parks and the City of Kenmore must coordinate interlocal planning to so preserve St. Edwards and so safeguard this sanctuary.

Hi Michael,

I just shipped off my comments to the [email protected]. I'm assuming this address actually comes to you, but ...you never know. so, I'm doubling up by taking the liberty to forward to you as well.

Should be an interesting meeting tomorrow!

Looking forward to seeing you again then.

Dear Commissioners,

Attached and copied below are my comments in preparation for Thursday evening's meeting. I look forward to seeing you again tomorrow. (Attachment Below)

Comments to the Washington State Parks Commission Regarding the Daniel’s Real Estate Proposed Lease for the Lodge at St. Edward State Park.

Submitted by (redacted)

An Environmental Learning Center Partnership for SESP - As you know, I have proposed an Environmental Learning Center Partnership (ELCP) for Saint Edward State Park. I envision a partnership effort in which community-driven and locally-relevant goals/objectives for public and youth engagement are identified and public-private partnerships are developed with nonprofits to support community- articulated goals. My proposal is also modeled in part on organizations I met with while visiting my family in Maine, as well as here in Seattle last summer in which nationally-registered historic buildings were repurposed for environmental education, outreach and research. These included The Schoodic Institute (former navy facility), the Wells Reserve at Laudholm Farm (longest operating salt water farm in southern Maine) in Maine and Seward Park Audubon Society (City of Seattle-owned historic building) which I presented at the Commerce Report meeting last August.

At the request of Parks staff subsequent to the Commerce Report meeting, I developed an initial Concept Paper for a SESP-ELCP which could fulfill the following objectives through cooperative of nonprofit partnerships. The ELCP I envisioned would provide for:

• Enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities - supported by partnerships with for example Washington Trails, Greenway Trust, etc. • pre-k – 16 environmental education teaching and learning – example partnerships with Islandwood, Wilderness Awareness School, Greenway Trust, Eastlake Audubon Society, Tiny Trees, E3 Washington, etc. • park stewardship and restoration projects – eg. WTA, Greenway, EarthCorps, SCA, etc. • adult, family and community outreach programs – eg. UW Bothell, UW Seattle, Eastlake Audubon, etc. • faculty-mentored and citizen science research projects that engage volunteers and help inform park management – eg. UW Bothell, UW Seattle, Eastlake Audubon, etc.

Progress to Date - Not surprisingly, I have been reasonably successful at interesting an initial group of diverse partners in the vision of an ELC for SESP. I have: • conducted a scouting tour of EE teaching and learning opportunities in the SESP landscape with UW – Bothell faculty • led a site visit of the grounds and building for EE teaching/learning opportunities at the park with Islandwood’s Senior Vice President for Education and staff These two scouting tours revealed a number of interesting questions for inquiry and educational opportunities including:

• How and why are the forest types in the north and south sections of the park so distinctly different? North dominated by mature conifers, Doug Fir, Hemlock and Cedar while the southern section is dominated by deciduous species including Cottonwood and Big Leaf Maple. • How does water quality in Streams 224 and 226 vary and how might variability be determined by the streams source (226 originates outside the park boundary while 224 originates from the wetlands adjacent the ball fields), verses forest type that each flows through, or some combination of factors • Could either stream support Koakane? What mitigation strategies could be employed to improve stream health for Kokane? • Why is American Holly so prevalent at SESP and what can be done about this invasive species? • What bird species are found in and around the natural ball fields, visa vie the forest, visa vie the Lake front and how might meadow and wetland habitat around the ball fields, forest and lake front habitats be improved for greater species diversity and abundance? These are among the few questions representatives from UW Bothell and Islandwood are interested in exploring.

I have also:

• met with UW Seattle Environmental Innovation Challenge Director to discuss interest/support across the university • personally conducted a site visit to the Brightwater Environmental Education and Community Center to learn about how this ELC came into being in conjunction with building the Brightwater Wastewater Treatment facility • discussed interest to help plan for, and/or participate in, a SESP ELCP with: - Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust - NatureBridge - Tiny Trees pre-school • Travelled to Olympia to meet with Parks staff on two occasions • Kept our 46th District delegation informed of progress through conference calls and phone meetings.

Even while an ELCP may still seem like an “add on” to the Daniels seminary redevelopment, I hope this narrative makes clear that I would take any further development of the ELCP concept to reality very seriously. I am interested in supporting our community through robust and rigorous EE, public outreach and interpretive programming that helps our communities attain the values attributed to outdoor recreation and environmental education. I am not interested simply tacking on EE programming to a large scale conference hotel and ball fields sports complex. A 1,000 sq ft set aside for public use is not sufficient to accommodate the ELCP envision. The Concept Paper I submitted to Parks and that was shared with the Commission at the Sequim meeting stated a need for 5,000-10,000 sq ft that would accommodate several classrooms, a small lab, a visitor and interpretive center and community meeting room. The community meeting room that is dedicated entirely to public and nonprofit community uses with the rental proceeds directed to funding environmental education programming. Proceeds from a small gift store could also go to fund EE programming.

In my view, helping to develop environmental awareness, literacy and stewardship behaviors is among the most valuable activities Parks could incorporate at SESP. Stanford University researchers recently conducted a literature review of 119 peer-reviewed studies that measured the impacts of environmental education for K-12 students. In addition to gaining knowledge about the environment, the research showed that learning about the environment led to numerous other positive impacts including improved:

• Knowledge in science, mathematics, reading, writing, and more • Emotional and social skills, such as self-esteem, character development, team work, and leadership skills • Environmentally friendly behavior, such as reducing water use, increasing recycling, and participating in community cleanups • Academic skills (21ST Century skills), such as critical thinking, oral communication, analytical skills, problem solving, and higher-order thinking • Motivation to learn, including enthusiasm for and interest in school • Civic interest and engagement, including feelings of civic responsibility, feelings of empowerment, and ability to take action In addition to these and other benefits accrued to youth participants, exposing youth to nature through environmental education is among the best ways WA State Parks could undertake to support development of its own future constituency. Supporting a robust environmental education facility at SESP would therefore be among the best efforts Parks could undertake to mitigate against the impacts accrued in the Park and to our local community resulting from the Daniel’s hotel development. Support for the ELCP would also help build a much stronger value proposition for Parks and our community resulting from any development in the park. This is particularly true given the perceived limited community values and environmental and social impacts resulting from the Hotel summarized below. Land Exchange not an Equitable Exchange - The land exchange of the McDonald Property does not support a strong value proposition for State Parks or park users. In actual terms, from a park user’s perspective, the addition of the 9.5 acres is worth nothing. It is worth very little in financial terms in that because of its steep slope, it is virtually undevelopable, or only developable at an extremely high cost, which is why it has languished undeveloped for decades, while the surrounding Arrowhead community has developed.

The 9.5 acre McDonald property is already accessible to park users by the North Ridge Trail which is clearly marked on the SESP trail map and therefore has been used by hikers at the park for decades. Yet, because of its steep slope, only the fit and able among park users are able to access and enjoy this section of the park, while I routinely see families, children, elderly, people from diverse backgrounds and recent immigrants who are either unable or less inclined to hike the trails, making use of the area adjacent the seminary building.

Even if you frame the argument that the lease will not preclude people from continuing to access the lease-held 5.5 acres, Parks is still getting very little real value added out of this property exchange as the property is worth so little in actual terms because of its steep slope, and park users are getting no value added out of the exchange because the property is already accessible via existing hiking trails and has been for decades.

Occupancies at Capacity - Nowhere in the Seminary development planning documents including the DEIS, FEIS, traffic study, or proposed lease, is a full accounting of the numbers of people that could be present at the conference hotel complex at capacity. The only numbers reported in these documents include the 80-100 hotel rooms and the estimated 890 vehicular per day estimated that could be generated. Throughout the SEPA DEIS and FEIS process, I have tried to understand how direct impacts resulting from the hotel and/or cumulative impacts of the hotel plus ball fields sports complex, can be accurately assessed in any of the environmental impact categories without a comprehensive understanding of all the occupancies at capacity.

One is left to extrapolate from other documents including floor plans, the Market Feasibility Study, etc. With respect to meeting rooms, while the architect’s floor plans reveal 15,000 sq ft of meet rooms, the Market Feasibility Study reads as follows. “Based on industry knowledge, we believe that the optimal meeting space for the Proposed Hotel is 80-90 sq ft of meeting space per room. This would translate to 8,000-9,000 sq fit of meeting space for a 100 room hotel. The Proposed Hotel will need group business to maintain occupancy and rate due to its distance away from larger cities such as Seattle and Bellevue. JLL proposes dedicated meeting spaces: one ballroom space around 3000 sq ft and several meeting rooms and one boardroom totally 5,000-6,000 sq ft.” ie a total of 8,000-9,000 sq ft of meeting rooms.”

At 15 sq ft per person as per International Building Code, this pencils out to meeting room capacity of 533 – 600 people for large conferences.

Meeting and conference capacity is 533-600 possible participants Hotel 100 (at single occupancy) Add to Hotel and Meeting room capacity the restaurant, bar, café, spa as follows Restaurant 144 people (36 x 4 person tables shown) Café 24 people (6 4 person tables), Bar 30+ people in the bar (per sq footage shown) Spa 8 Plus Staff Hotel including housekeeping 6 staff Restaurant and Bar 20 staff Spa 4 staff Conference facilities 4 staff Grounds keepers 4 staff Total = 877 (using low values of hotel and conference occupancy)

Assuming that realistically, not all occupancies will be at capacity at any one time, even ½ or 50% of these totals yields an additional 438 people making use of this private enterprise in or public park. Nowhere in the DEIS or FEIS are impact categories assessed via the numbers that are clearing revealed in both the floor plans and market feasibility study. Nowhere do the DEIS or FEIS documents assessed potential cumulative impacts using numbers of people who could potentially be making use of the conference hotel facility plus numbers of families making use of the LL sports complex. At 26 players per game xs 2 games in play at any one time, this is a further addition of 55 families with their 55 individual cars in the park in addition to vehicles associated with the conference hotel.

Parking - (redacted) has done a masterful job at revealing for the Commission the true impacts to parking. I will not repeat his work accept to note that potential cumulative parking impacts that could occur if the Commission also votes to approve the ball fields sports complex. I would only add that the notion of providing overflow parking at Bastyr is erroneous as the Bastyr parking lot is consistently over capacity with currently student parking consistently filling the designated lot areas with parking overflowing onto the Bastyr spur access road.

Traffic - While the Heffron Traffic Study reports that traffic impacts will be minimal, I suggest this is strongly under estimated and does not account for the explosive growth occurring in the Puget Sound region, Seattle, the East Side, Kirkland and Kenmore. Last Sunday’s Seattle Times held an article entitled “Seattle’s Apartment Boom Ready to Explode,” “The apartment boom in Seattle has already reached historic heights more units opened in each of the past four years than ever before. Now, the real boom I about to begin. Seattle is set to see almost 10,000 new market ate apartments open in 2017, nearly twice as many as in any other year in the city’s history.…The magnitude of the construction is remarkable. The city is on pace to more apartments built this decade than in the previous 50 years combined—and the vast majority of the new units haven’t opened yet according to Dupree and Scott research firm.”

While SESP is located in Kenmore and Kirkland, not Seattle, the overall trends are similar. The large mixed use complex is about to open in Kenmore, I suspect many of you passed the gaping construction site where 42 luxury town homes are slated to open with another 34 homes slated for development just below it. Juanita Drive is a single lane road. Bumper to bumper traffic already backs up from Market Street in Kirkland, through Juanita, up Juanita Drive, through the Holmes Point Road and SESP entrance road traffic signals. With the needed adjustment of the SESP traffic signal to accommodate the increase in incoming and outgoing traffic from the hotel (and potential ball fields), this can only be expected to significantly worsen traffic on Juanita Drive with significant impacts to our communities.

These are other impacts should be strongly mitigated in order for WA State Parks to attain a stronger value for the Agency and Park Users. I can think of no better way to attain the level and quality of mitigation needed for this project than through environmental education.

Michael Hankinson:

Please make the following comment letter immediately available to the Parks Commission.

January 4, 2017

Commission Chair : Steve Milner Washington State Parks Commissioners and staff: Michael Hankinson

RE: January 5, 2017 Park Commission meeting RE: St. Edward State Park Lease and Land and Water Conservation Fund ( LWCF) land swap/ conversion

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for convening a meeting at Bastyr regarding the proposed St. Edward State Park Lease and “ land swap”.

I do not support what has been characterized as a “ land swap”. In lieu of lease payments, Daniels is proposing to transfer the “ McDonald property” and “banking” of dollars; with a waiver will allow State Parks to offset $1,500,00 for use in any future unanticipated LWCF or RCO conversions in the state.

The RCO letter of November 17, 2016 does not document with any detail the rationale for the lease and permitted use of the seminary building “ not create[ing] a conversion. My reading of the LWCF manual would only allow this banking option, if it were a “ conversion” ; which RCO has determined it is not. The Commercial use of the building and associated grounds as outlined in Exhibit A-2, and defined in the Lease agreement, is clearly for NON-OUTDOOR Recreation purpose, and is, in fact, a conversion. The proposed landswap will not satisfy the LWCF compensation for conversion as determined by the NPS.

Regarding the proposed Lease Agreement, I request that the Parks Commission NOT approve the current lease agreement on January 9th. There are numerous omissions in the lease agreement that must be corrected in order protect cultural resources and not create an unanticipated action to the detriment of the public use of the park.

The proposal is to lease a 5.5 acre area, including an area of land south of the pool (approximately .5 acre) currently used as a recreational volley ball, badminton area and as a picnic area.

Section 4.10 of the lease allows the lessee to make improvement, alterations, and additions to the leased premises without the State’s approval after the lessee has completed the rehabilitation work. Therefore, the lessee could build a new addition to the hotel and conference center on the land now designated as the pool (pool is not considered a cultural resource) , parking area and volley ball/ picnic area [aka culinary garden] and the State according to this lease would have no authority to stop them. The only limitation might be the Permitted Uses designated by the City of Kenmore—which include a hotel, conference center, and related uses. Such a very large addition could become a reality in the future under the current lease agreement.

Second, section 3.12 Parking allows overnight guests of the lodge to park in the “garage” one of two alternatives in the FEIS, or north parking lot. Control of the individual parking areas is the responsibility of the lessee. There is no provision that the lessee will provide adequate parking or that parking will be available to park users if indeed it is built. A Comprehensive Section should be added to the lease to address parking issues.

In an addendum dated 12/30/2016 the description of the current proposal now includes additional items --i.e parking and circulation improvements … expanding existing parking, and improving the pedestrian paths surrounding the Seminary. These additional items, and the .5 acre culinary garden are not covered by the recently amended statutory authority in RCW79A.05.025. See item (vi) Associated property immediately adjacent to the areas listed (b)(i)through (v) of this subsection. The intent of that language is to allow the lease to include immediately adjacent land that may be necessary for the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings. The proposed “ culinary garden”, is a much larger area associated with the picnic area and volley ball court uses, not the pool and seminary. And , in like manner, expanding existing parking and improving the pedestrian paths surrounding the Seminary are not covered by the lease terms in RCW 79A.05.025.

Please do not sign the proposed lease on January 9th . Further negotiations are necessary to correct these flaws.

Hello, I have attached my comments for consideration by the State Parks and Recreation Commission. If this is not the correct email address, or this email is in some other way incorrect, I can be contacted via this email or at (redacted) Thank you.

To: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1/4/2017, 3:10 PM

Hello, I am writing to convey to you my personal feelings towards the Saint Edward State Park Seminary Building Proposal. To briefly describe my connection with the park, I have been visiting it my whole life. Thanks to my time with the Inglemoor High school cross-country team, I know most of its trails like the back of my hand. I used to swim at its pool when it was still in service, and have occasionally had the opportunity to go inside the Seminary Building’s ballroom. I have also studied the parks human history and environment as a final term paper during my senior year at Western Washington University. Unfortunately as my schedule is busy and time is limited, I don’t have the time to go into depth of detail on each concern I have. Instead, I hope to convey to you my personal thoughts and comments as an environmentally minded citizen of the City of Kenmore. Thank you for your consideration of the following. Initially, I had ambivalent feelings about the Daniels proposal. I thought and still do maintain that it is a less environmentally damaging option than options presented in the past. However, upon carefully reading the prepared Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed Lease agreement, and other documents, I have found certain aspects that have made me seriously doubt the project. Primarily, I am concerned with the content and nature of the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. I am by no means an expert on Environmental Impact Statements; my only experience with them has come from a classroom setting. That being said, through my studies I have had to closely analyze at critique dozens of such documents. I find the EIS covering the Seminary Building proposal to have a feeling of being overly simple and ‘rushed’ for lack of a better term. This feeling, for me, comes from three major sources. First, There are only two proposed alternatives to the project as is, including the no action alternative. What’s more, the only change in the additional alternative is to prevent the removal of ten trees. I feel that there are possibly many other alternatives worth exploration, and the EIS fails to acknowledge this. I am aware that other concerned citizens have brought up this same concern before. I believe the official response to the concern, summarized, is the consideration of additional alternatives, such as making the seminary a ruin, are essentially to hypothetical for the moment. I find this response to almost be hypocritical, as, when discussing the McDonald property acquisition, no time is wasted in bringing up the largely hypothetical situation where that land could be developed if it not acquired and given to the parks. Second, I feel that the final EIS makes a large underestimation of the environmental impact that a lodge placed in the middle of the park would have. The Habitat Assessment that the EIS relies on covers only a small radius around the Seminary building, as compared to the total area of the park. I do not find this to be adequate. The park contains animal species that will not respect this red line drawn on a map; the whole park is connected and Introducing a lodge into it invites a much larger populations of people into the area that will produce trash, noise, light pollution, and other disturbances that the surrounding environment of the park has not had to handle in its entire history, even when it was an active seminary. I find it almost self-contradictory to claim that introducing as many additional vehicles and people as had been claimed will be drawn to the park will not have a significant impact on the park as a whole. As a side, I feel like some crucial details were omitted in the final EIS. Within the proposal is the plan to build an underground parking facility. Where is the soil produced from this going to go? Additionally, I cannot find anything in the Lease for the project concerning this garage, which concerns me. My final concern with the final EIS comes at its end; in responding to the comments citizens sent in during the public comment period of the draft EIS, I feel like some concerns were not given an adequate answer. I understand how emotional appeals warrant only a “comment noted” response, but I feel certain questions/concerns about the content of the EIS and the project were simply referred back to the sections in the EIS from which they arose. For an example, I refer to “response to letter 12” in section 3 of the final EIS concerning the project. On what is listed as point 15, the author of the letter expresses a concern that I myself have; that the McDonald property acquisition is being presented as if it is a physical addition to the park, instead of just a legal one. The point being made by the author seems to be that even if visitors of the park are using the trail and “trespassing” they are still using it, and legally obtaining the land would not suddenly create more space to offset the influx of additional visitors to the park. In response to this, the author is simply told what she likely already knows, that being on the trail in that part of the park is technically trespassing, and obtaining the McDonald property would alleviate this issue. I feel that this response does not address the heart of the authors concern. As one additional concern towards this project, I find section 4.10 of the lease drawn up for the project to be concerning. Leaving the developers to make any additions, improvements, or alterations after the restoration is complete, with no approval necessary and only the words “reasonably-appropriate” is an incredibly open ended thing to do. I think this alone warrants further discussion and possible revision. Overall, I think more time and thought needs to put into this project. I feel that both sides of this issue, both those pro-development and against it hold valid points. I also feel like there has been fault on both sides. Some citizens, I know, have been quite vocal and aggressive against any and all development. However this whole process of considering the Daniels proposal has felt like its been pushed along despite the large number of citizens who are clearly saying that they do not want this development. I feel like this is just a building. Yes, it has historical significance, and yes its facade is impressive. However, I do not feel that it is worth sacrificing the last 300-acre park in the area for. Once this development happens, its impact cannot be undone. I feel that injecting a new purpose and giving the building an essential facelift is really preserving it and honoring its historical value, which is the supposed purpose of this project. I ask that you please consider this as you make your decision on this subject. I also ask that you consider what kind of message putting a hotel into the middle of a state park sends. In this current social and political climate, I think we need to treat our environment very carefully, so please, give this decision very careful consideration.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this,

I’ve just submitted comments on your website and am assuming that that was the proper place to do that. But I just found this address as well.

Very simply, I hope you vote to move forward on the Daniels proposal. To be able to restore and use this beautiful building would be wonderful. It is sad and completely unnecessary to watch it deteriorate. As a family who has enjoyed picnicking on the grounds for years, we think this is the best solution.

You have studied this proposal thoroughly. Now is the time to move forward. Thank you.

I have already commented several times on the Saint Edward State Park Seminary proposal. I think it is a fine and very acceptable way to make sure this remarkable building is renovated and used, and I hope this will be approved. The previous email I received regarding this said that comments were accepted up to 5 p.m. on today's date, although the email address given on this site was not found. A previous postcard said public comments had to be received by Dec. 30. In any event, I do hope that you will approve this. I have been appalled at some of the nay-sayers who have even stated that allowing this beautiful building to fall apart is better than restoring it and letting others enjoy it. My family has enjoyed picnicking on the grounds for years, and it appears that we would still be able to. I imagine there will be grumbling and protesting, but I really do believe that the Daniels proposal is the best solution. Thank you. This has been studied and studied and studied. Now I hope this can move forward.

Law makers and profit makers both have brought about massive loss of the natural beauty in the Pacific Northwest. Please care about the little remaining areas over which you do have the power to affect. Please use your position and power to protect the land, not just immediate gains of avaricious or single-minded sports enthusiasts,

As a citizen of Kenmore, I feel that the use of the seminary building should be determined by the choice that provides the least possible impact on the natural environment. The options are not in my area of expertise. However, as a veterinary trained in environmental science, I can state that preserving the ecosystems of the surrounding area requires very careful management.

Please proceed responsibly.

Dear Michael, As I struggle with computer issues, could you please forward this to the Park Commissioners and any others relevant to the meeting tomorrow?

Mr. Hankinson, I raised my family not far from this beautiful property and have always been impressed by the look and feel of St. Edward. It is very easy to imagine being in England or Scotland when walking the property. The time for making a decision to save this tremendous asset is now, no better time than during a booming real estate market to take advantage of the optimism that can finally save this property. I have completed one transaction with Kevin Daniels, a difficult property right next to the Seahawk’s stadium, a very unusual property that had intense community involvement and Mr. Daniels is delivering what he promised and has saved a property that otherwise may not have had a future at all. The strength and experience that Mr. Daniels can bring to this property is exactly what is needed and the time is now. Please free to call me on my cell, thank you.

I'm writing in support of the Daniels proposal to rehabilitate St. Edward Seminary. Last fall, a group of historians had an opportunity to tour the building with Kevin Daniels, who told us of his plans. The fact that he would breathe new life into a magnificent old building, as well as add new shoreline acreage to the park, is too good to pass up. I feel that this would be a wonderful solution. Thanks very much for your work on this issue, and for your consideration!

Gentlereader,

Please find my remarks regarding parking at St. Edward state park regarding the Daniels proposal.

Please confirm receipt of this letter and that it will be presented to the Park Commissioners on Friday.

(Letter below)

January 4, 2017

Washington State Park Commissioners

Re. Parking Omission from Daniels Lodge Lease Dear Park Commissioners, Throughout this process parking has been a concern. It has been an issue since the CAMP process and on through the FEIS. Many claims were made during the FEIS that the hotel operator will be responsible for not displacing the public from the public parking lots. Yet there is nothing in the lease that protects the traditional park, parking lot users from being displaced by hotel and convention center visitors. Nothing in the lease requires Daniels to protect the public parking lots, for non-hotel public visitors. No loss of public parking has been a constant theme by all promoters of the Daniels Lodge from letters to public reports and public presentations. Cedarbrook Lodge in Seattle is the template for the traffic study used to justify the 153 parking spaces Daniels is proposing to build for his Lodge and Conference Center. The Cedarbrook Lodge was studied during the last recession in January. Cedarbrook offers low winter rates this year, presumably demand is low every winter. Winter time recession era parking demand was observed and extrapolated into, todays booming Seattle economy, with no adjustments for high seasons or change in local economy. In the FEIS city of Kenmore determined this project to be a hotel with no need to provide parking for conference center activity, due to the analysis and solutions offered by Hefron. A remarkable conclusion by the city of Kenmore and Washington State Park Planners who collaborated in the FEIS. Had the city of Kenmore and Park Planners classified this project to be a hotel/Conference Center, the city would have required at least 332 parking spaces, per KMC 18.40.030. The city of Kenmore, waived the conference center parking requirements for this project and utilized the much lower hotel parking standards. Please note the Cedarbrook Lodge can accommodate over 1,000 people inside and several hundred more outside. The Daniels lodge conference area is almost the same size as Cedarbrook’s at 97%*. At peak capacity Cedarbrook could have over 1017 guests while Daniels by comparison 986. Using the ITE conference rate of .90 cars per guest and .45 per hotel room Daniels could have 932 cars to park. This is a problem the lease does not address. The Hefron report makes suggestion but does not clearly show where and how almost a thousand cars will be parked. How will these lodge visitors not end up in the public parking lots? The lease is silent. The point is the parking issue is not well understood by Park Planners much less Park Commissioners. Park Commissioners rely on Park Planners and the city of Kenmore to plan for parking. Parking is not properly addressed in the lease agreement with Daniels Lodge. How is Daniels going to deal with all of the cars? This is a fair question for Park Commissioners to investigate and demand sound reasoned solutions to, by competent professionals. Professionals not handpicked by and coached by the applicant. Daniels should be required to demonstrate and guarantee in the lease how he is going to manage parking for the Lodge and preserve non-hotel public access to parking lots. It is the Park Commissions responsibility to understand how this will work before approving a lease with Daniel’s. It is the Park Commissions right to demand a contemporary, professional traffic and parking analysis by a company noted for good workmanship and high standards. Do not bow to the pressure to authorize this lease on January 9. It is unnecessary to rush this process when so much is unknown. A little time spent now writing a good lease is better than a lifetime with a bad lease.

*See exhibit A following this letter for calculations. Please scroll down.

EXHIBIT A The following table is used in the Hefron traffic plan to estimate parking demand.

Below are the simple calculations that were used to show the parking potential of the Daniels Lodge using Cedarbrook as the model, the same model that Hefron used. It is presumed that Daniels Lodge will have a similar distribution of meeting rooms. The attached link shows the Cedarbrook meeting room inventory. http://cdn1.buuteeq.com/upload/2000049/09092014-cl-fp-capacities-2.pdf The meeting room inventory is also tabulated and pictured below.

Cedarbrook Lodge Meeting Room Capacity. See diagrams below.

Max Min Square Room capacity capacity feet Tamarack 300 64 4380 Cedar 1 75 24 1092 Cedar 2 75 30 1092 Cedar 3 75 30 1092 The Summit 120 120 2675 Lily 100 30 1153 Reflection Gallery 200 200 4190 Brightwood Board Room 40 26 800 Spruce Parlor 20 12 375 Spruce Dens 12 8 228 Cedarbrook Meeting Room Capacity 1017 544 17077 Daniels Capacity Comparison 97% 986 528 16,600

Daniels conference center will be 97% the size of Cedarbrook at 16,600 sq./ft. of meeting space according to the Hefron report.

Cedarbrook capacity charts below.

Dear Park Commission, Please vote yes to lease the seminary building for use as a hotel. The city of Kenmore already missed a great opportunity to work with the McMenamin brothers to restore the building. As a resident of Kenmore for 14 years, I feel that it would be a positive relationship for the city, state, and developer. Because the property will not interfere with the hundreds of acres of woods and trails that exist in the park, it is clearly a win win. The parking for the park is in desperate need of upgrades which will be addressed as well by this proposal.

I would however, like to see the developer also renovate the existing pool and make it available to the community.

I am writing once again to express my concern for the proposed development of the seminary building located at St. Edwards Park. The proposed development will undoubtedly alter the footprint of St. Edwards Park. As a tax payer and citizen of this state, I am disheartened by the potential willingness to alter the environmental footprint of this park for the benefit of the few who will be able to afford the proposed hotel facilities. The best scenario in my opinion, would be to dismantle the majority of the Seminary building that requires extensive renovation.

RE: the Revised Commission Agenda Item

Many people in support of the proposal seem to be confusing the purpose of the “exchange agreement” between Washington State Parks and Daniels Real Estate, by stating that the 9.77 McDonald property is being given to the State Park system. The agreement states that the property is being exchanged as a partial payment of rent. This is not a gift by any means but rather a “forgiveness” of lease fees. In a sense, wouldn’t it be the tax payers paying Daniels Real Estate for the McDonald property? If the exchange is truly part of the deal, why should Daniels Real Estate not ensure the property is being offered without the financial obligation that obviously benefits the company (and not the Washington state system)?

Please consider that Seminary building development proposal at Saint Edwards Park impacts the entire state and nation as a whole. Few people, even with the best intentions, look at the long-term and global impacts of the decisions we make locally. I can say with certainty, if this proposal is accepted, my future grandchildren will never have the same kind of experiences that my own children have had at Saint Edwards Park. This park has been one of the redeeming qualities of living north of Seattle. My wife and I spent many hours walking the trails with our sons.

Given the political climate in which many public lands will forever be altered in the next few years, it would be nice to say that we did what we could locally in order to sustain a park so that it remains open to the enjoyment of all people as opposed to the few.

I'm generally and strongly sympathetic to preservation of park and public lands and wild spaces (my bile rising with regards to shenanigans such as these: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/03/house- gop-rules-change-would-make-it-easier-to-sell-off-federal- land/?utm_term=.b7b0d19f58e1). In this case, however, I'm in favor of the Daniels proposal because the building is already there and, in fact, a key aspect of the park's appeal, and therefore worth preserving as an architectural feature. Ideally the state steps forward to rehabilitate this property and preserve it for public use. But in the current political and fiscal environment that's clearly not going to happen. This is the next best thing, in my opinion. A key part of the deal that bears repeating is the net *gain* of public park land in the deal: Daniels leases (from the state, which retains ownership) the 5.5 acres surrounding the seminary building, and in return purchases, and deeds to the state, the 10 additional acres of the "McDonald property," which is undeveloped Lake Washington waterfront adjacent to the park. I think in balance this is a very good deal for everyone, including our children's children, and those of us with a strong interest in preserving both natural and historic places. Please approve this plan.

I support the development proposal for St. Edwards State Park to renovate and restore the seminary building and preserve it for future generations. It would be tragic if a vocal minority prevented the lease from being granted and the building from being saved. We have a great heritage of natural beauty here in the Pacific Northwest, which I greatly value. I have supported environmental causes for my entire adult life and have even opposed some developments in the past. I enjoy the recreational activities that our lifestyle in Kenmore permit, including hiking the trails in St. Edwards State Park. But the seminary building is part of a rich architectural heritage, and that history too, deserves to be preserved. As a young part of the U.S., we have very few heritage buildings. While I would prefer the building be renovated by a non-profit or the state, I recognize that in the current environment that will never happen. The proposed lease of the St. Edwards seminary building and surrounding grounds represents the last best opportunity to preserve a rare historic building and pass it on to our children and grandchildren, without ruining the natural setting of the park. Please vote to support the lease.

My name is (redacted) and my wife (redacted) and I are in support of the development of the old Saint Edwards Seminary.

As long time Bastyr and woodland park users we see this development as a win win situation for the Kenmore / Bastyr community, the park as a whole and a means of preserving a beautiful piece of architecture.

If additional information is needed please feel free to reach out to either myself or my wife Annie as we are in support of this development by Developer Kevin Daniels.

Thank you and we wish for a positive outcome for all involved in this development.

APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SEMINARY, SAINT EDWARDS PARK As a patron of Saint Edwards Park, I find the development plan currently under consideration to be a sound one which takes into account the interests of the public. It balances the need to renovate the seminary with the overall ambiance of the park. It provides a wonderful resource to the public through the thoughtful renovation of a beautiful and historic building, as well as the many amenities the developer has proposed for the park. This developer has a history of conscientious renovations and revitalizations of other historic buildings in the Puget Sound Area. The project is in the public interest, making the seminary usable and available, as well as providing the public with additional benefits. I strongly support the commission's approval of this project.

I strongly support the project proposed by Kevin Daniels for the restoration of St Edwards. I was involved in some earlier preservation work on the building and I am very familiar with the degraded condition of the structure. This important landmark must be preserved in the near future or we risk losing the entire building to water penetration impacting the reinforced concrete sub-structure. Kevin Daniels is an exemplary developer with a strong record of doing first rate preservation. The compromises reached in negotiations with Parks and neighborhood advocates is very reasonable and we must not "lose the good for the sake of the perfect". Thank you for your consideration.

I am a resident of Kirkland but live within a few miles of St. Edwards Park. I wanted to provide comments because I believe that vocal opponents to the plans for a Lodge do not represent me, or many other residents in the area. Just because I have not been active in the process does not mean that my opinion does not count as much of those who are more involved.

Like many people in the area I enjoy the use of the park trails. I also appreciate the beauty of the Seminary building. I support the plans to rehabilitate the Seminary and develop a Lodge. I believe this would best serve the public's interest and would be a solution to the aging facility while still keeping the park accessible for other activities. Adding the Lodge would allow more people to enjoy the park, not just those few who happen to live nearby. Doing nothing and allowing the Seminary to further deteriorate is not a viable option.

I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed 62-year lease of the Seminary to Daniels Real Estate of Seattle.

This building is gorgeous and deserves restoration, and I look at this project with the long view: for a 62-year lease on the property, the building will be restored, the park will be used (and hopefully loved) by more people, and then the parks dept can decide if they want to renew a lease, or take the use of the building back.

Daniels has proven to be an upstanding and responsible local developer; I'd rather have someone like him work on it/lease it than many others that might be chosen.

I love the park; I love the trails and tranquility as much as the building. Let's trust each other to care for it all through this proposal. Thank you.

I realize that it is past the deadline for comment, but since I am now scheduled to be at work during the Jan 5 meeting, I would like to say that there are four registered voters in our household who are IN FAVOR of the lease and renovation. We do not want to see this beautiful historic landmark crumble to the ground.

NEWS 16-074 Contact: Michael Hankinson, (360) 902-8671 Virginia Painter, (360) 902- 8562 Commission will consider Saint Edward Seminary lease at special meeting Jan. 5 OLYMPIA – Dec. 5, 2016 —The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will have a special meeting in Kenmore in January, where it will consider authorizing the State Parks director to enter a 62-year lease agreement with Daniels Real Estate of Seattle for the Seminary Building at Saint Edward State Park. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 5, at Bastyr College, 14500 Juanita Drive N.E., Kenmore. (Directions: https://goo.gl/maps/S6MZiHRVkbR2). The meeting will begin with a Commission executive session, after which the public meeting will commence.

A special meeting agenda, including the proposed lease, will be available online on Dec. 22 at http://parks.state.wa.us/154/Commission-Meetings-Agendas. Public comments submitted through Dec. 30 at 5 p.m. will be made available to the Commission prior to the special meeting. In addition to the consideration of director authorization on the lease, the Commission will review details of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) public process that addresses issues such as parking and environmental impacts associated with the proposal. The Commission also will see the results of building and property appraisals that are part of the lease agreement.

State Parks acquired Saint Edward State Park in 1977. Since that time, State Parks has entertained a number of preservation, rehabilitation and re-use ideas for the park’s iconic Seminary Building and grounds. In September 2014, the Commission considered a range of management options from building demolition to rehabilitation—and adopted rehabilitation as its preferred option.

The Commission determined it would need to enter a partnership with a private or public entity to secure the capital investment needed to successfully rehabilitate the building. Any project would be required to align with the State Parks mission and avoid negative impacts to the park’s natural features. The proposal by Daniels Real Estate of Seattle includes rehabilitating the Seminary for use as a lodge. As part of the lease arrangement, Daniels agreed to purchase a 9.7-acre private property that lies adjacent to the park and to transfer it to State Parks in exchange for use of the building.

The property adds to the park’s natural area along Lake Washington and allows the agency to appropriately manage trails that are already in use by the public. In the proposed agreement, Daniels shoulders the cost of rehabilitation. It is anticipated that the exchange and lease agreement will generate additional annual revenue for State Parks through new Discover Pass sales and through parking fees paid by overnight lodgers.

A proposal by the City of Kenmore to improve ballfields at the park is unrelated to the building lease under consideration and has no bearing on the proposed Seminary project. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1111 Israel Road S.W. P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-2650

Washington Telecommunications Relay Service: (800) 833-6388

Commenter:

Hi Micheal,

I hope you had a great week, I am sure you are looking forward to the weekend. It's been a while since we have been in touch, I have a couple of questions which I hope are not too difficult to answer.

Michael:

Thanks, (redacted), I had a great weekend and hope yours went well, too. It has been a while since we last spoke. Peter and I are interested in meeting with you. Perhaps this week?

Commenter:

I recently learned about the upcoming Commission meeting January 5 at Bastyr U and just read the December 5th Press Release posted to Parks site, copied into the email below. I am trying to understand the timing of the lease review and decision making process visa vie timing of the Final EIS.

Michael:

It was really important for us to get the word out as soon as possible about the proposed lease. The purpose of the press release was to provide a month advance notice to the public and Commission. We are also holding it in Kenmore to ensure everyone has an opportunity to come. So the announcement of a meeting does not imply any decisions have been made.

Commenter:

The Press Release makes no mention of the Final EIS, the timing of its release and consideration of its findings in the final Lease Proposal. My understanding is that the purpose of the SEPA - EIS process, culminating with the Final EIS, is identify and articulate specific environmental concerns and possibilities for mitigation that may influence/impact (in this case) the specific provisions of the proposed lease.

This being the case, I am not understanding the logic behind making final determinations on the proposed lease Before the Final EIS has been made public, all environmental concerns raised by the public have been addressed, and possible mitigation measures identified. I'm not understanding how the process on final lease negotiations can move forward before this essential SEPA step has been taken.

Can you provide me some explanation of the timing of the final EIS visa vie timing of final Lease preparation. Based on the Press Release, I now understand the final proposed lease will be made public 12/22 with final comments due 8 days later, 12/30.

How can the public fully evaluate the specific lease provisions without the scientific basis of findings which should be promulgated in the Final EIS? What can the public expect re timing of release of the Final EIS and how does this timing fit into the overall time frame of lease prep and approvals?

Michael:

The products needed to evaluate a potential action have not yet been distributed. We need the FEIS in order to ensure the draft lease considers all environmental impacts. So, in other words, the lease remains in draft form until we can incorporate anything that comes out of the Final EIS, includes public comment, and finally, Commission evaluation. Staff anticipates that the Final EIS will be published by December 16. This timing provides staff with a period to finalize the proposed lease prior to its public release on the 22nd. The public and Commission will have the opportunity to review the FEIS and draft lease materials in advance of the special Commission meeting. The January 5th special Commission meeting will allow the Commission to discuss the lease and to take public testimony. (Please also send follow up questions to the City and use the City’s website for additional information, as the City is the lead agency.)

I want to stress that there are no determinations or actions at this time or in the month of December for that matter. Determinations regarding the lease will be made with the benefit of the Final EIS in January.

Commenter:

Second, I do not understand the final sentence in the press release. "A proposal by the City of Kenmore to improve ball fields at the park is unrelated to the building lease under consideration and has no bearing on the proposed Seminary project." The Seminary DEIS and EIS was/is directed to consider and address Cumulative Impacts of the possible Seminary hotel development and the proposed ball fields rolling out in one park landscape. Therefore, from a Cumulative Impact perspective at SESP, the Seminary and Ball Fields projects are inextricably related. Can you explain the basis for claiming these two projects are unrelated?

Michael:

The project’s Final EIS absolutely considers cumulative impacts of the ball field project on the Seminary. To clarify, the intention of the press release was to simply explain that the Seminary project will require a separate Commission action from the ball field action.

Commenter:

Thanks in advance for getting back to me.

Commenter:

Thank you Michael ...

...for taking the time to write up this detailed response. This is helpful and I think I now understand the timing and order in which things are unfolding.

Looking forward to catching up hopefully Wednesday morning.

Commenter: As you are aware, the seminary building is now being emptied of contents.

Michael: I spoke with Karl Hinze, our park manager. He hired a Washington Conservation Crew (WCC) to help him clean the building. This effort began a year ago. The person you spoke with does not work for Parks. State Parks is sorting out operational items from stored furniture and relocating them to the pool building. He is also sorting broken furniture from intact furniture. Anything broken or damaged was evaluated by our curator of collections. Anything in tact will be stored in the pool building. If you want to look at the broken furniture it is located near the shop down at the gym. Anything salvageable is going to surplus (if they will take it, which is a decision by Enterprise Services). Karl was tasked with this effort when he first came on board at the park over a year ago and the timing of the crew was based on their availability. WCC actually contacted Karl asking for a project.

Commenter: The answer by one of the movers to my question “What’s being done with all of that?” triggered several more questions. Her answer (paraphrased):

The building is being turned into a hotel.

Michael: The Commission makes this decision. It is common knowledge that Daniels Real Estate wants to rehabilitate the building as a lodge.

We’re emptying the building and sorting items.

Michael: This project started last year with our inventory that was conducted by our historic preservation specialist and collections curator.

Parks will decide what they want to keep, discard, recycle.

Michael: This is true. The building is filled with important items, not so important items, junk, and trash. This is not my opinion, but our collections manager helped sort this out. It was a mess in the building and needed to be cleaned up. Cleaning the building does not imply that a decision was made. It means we’re cleaning the building.

The hotel group will get the rest.

Michael: Anything associated with the building (architecturally or individual items) that is somehow useful or valuable will remain property of the state.

Commenter:

My further questions/concerns:

1. Although the official “talking points” from State Parks and the City of Kenmore is that any “hotel deal” hasn’t been finalized, it appears that this is a matter of semantics.

True, although all the details may not yet be worked out and a lease has not yet been signed, it appears that a deal has been reached.

Michael: Managing the park and building is not something that is put on hold during the planning process. Cleaning the building and moving items has been on the radar for over a year. I’m not sure with whom you spoke, but it was not park staff; Karl Hinze is the only permanent staff at the park. Understanding what Daniels would like to do with the building does not imply that a decision was made by the Commission. It sounds like this person moving things at the building was just doing their job, but they are not aware of any details.

2. Is an inventory being composed of every item being removed and if so, can a private entity verify that inventory?

Michael: Call Alicia Woods who is our curator of collections.

3. If Daniels is being given any building contents, is that not making a “private gift of public funds”?

Michael: Nothing is being given to Daniels Real Estate.

Commenter: It was recently observed on a tour of the seminary building that it is full of items marked for Daniels with green flagging and Daniels' personal assistant's business cards. So if nothing is being given to Daniels, then how and when will they estimate the value of these items, and how will payment for them be transferred from Daniels to the State?

Michael: It appears that you are very concerned that resources are being gifted to a private entity. I can understand how someone might see it that way when items are marked, but the reality is that nothing is being stolen or gifted or mismanaged.

The whole point of preservation is to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, historic fabric or historic objects from the Seminary and set them aside for possible future use if a project is allowed to move forward by the State Parks Commission.

Nothing is being given away, but historic architectural pieces are set aside for possible reuse.

Green tags identify these types of objects. Green tags do not mean the state is gifting resources. It means we are trying to recycle them.

Commenter: Thanks, Michael. I really don’t want items to be “lost in the shuffle”. It would be wonderful if important pieces could be used in some way. I am a recently retired (Washington state) teacher who “lived through” the building of a new high school, and I know first-hand what happened to “tons” of stuff from the old building.

I mentioned earlier that the Archdiocese held a “garage sale” in the 70’s before transferring ownership to the state. I purchased one of the original outdoor pedestal-type water fountains, a set of dishes with the seminary logo, some books with Bishop O’Dea’s signature, and other treasures! Seems like Parks could have a fundraiser with all the “stuff” that appears to be value-less. Surprising how clever and creative people can transform such items!

Don and Karen, Typo in the below email, probably apparent to you, which should read, If the drafts and counter drafts have not been written, that would demonstrate that the public interest is not being protected.

Subject: PRR request regarding Saint Edward State Park

Good Friday morning Karen and Don, There is a need for the public to know more regarding the Daniels lease, thus the below PRR request: Lease proposals Daniels has presented regarding Saint Edward State Park and all State Parks Staff and Attorney General's Staff counter drafts that show the redlining, etc.. These thoughtful actions need to cover the Seminary Building, the pool building, the gymnasium building and the land. Daniels wants a long term renewable lease to include the swimming pool which when moth balled had a fairly new pool liner, and the gymnasium building, which is in excellent, usable shape, with to the public's knowledge, no plan by Daniels to use either. Why would he take on the maintenance costs of two buildings with no plan to use them? Which question leads to the PRR request that should include Daniels lease proposals and all counter drafts by State Parks Staff and Attorney General's Staff that include the Seminary building, the land and the two buildings. Regarding the two buildings and all, it should be demonstrated: 1) State Parks Staff and the Attorney General's Office are writing into the lease that Daniels be required to maintain the two buildings and all Daniels will lease; 2) State Parks Staff and the Attorney Generals Staff are writing into the lease drafts, parameters regarding development of those two buildings and all. My understanding is in proper commercial lease negotiations there are drafts by one party and counter drafts by another, with red-lining, etc. I am not finding those in the public materials. If the drafts and counter drafts have been written, that would demonstrate that the public interest is being protected. These should be made public because they will offer valuable insights into intentions and counter intentions. Thank you. The snow is already melting in Kenmore at this early hour, darn it.

From: Thrasher, Brian (PARKS) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 11:18 AM Subject: FW: Typo in PRR request regarding Saint Edward State Park

Ms.(redacted),

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is in receipt of your public records request. The staff in our Parks Development Division are in the process of gathering the requested documents. Due to staff workload, upcoming holidays, and the time it will take to review the documents for redactions, we expect it may take a couple of weeks to complete your request. Our goal is to have the requested records to you by Friday, December 30, 2016.

Thank you for your patience. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian Thrasher Records and Forms Manager Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission

Subject: Liability for State Parks as City of Kenmore takes SEPA lead. So, I request un-redacted material. Re: Typo in PRR request regarding Saint Edward State Park

Don and Mr. Young, Thank you for your attention to this letter, and thus to the important matter of Saint Edward State Park, among always the three most popular public parks in the state. The reason I ask Mr. Thrasher who has apparently gone on vacation, whether the PRR is being referred to the Attorney General's Office, is I believe the City of Kenmore is not acting in State Parks' interests. The City of Kenmore politically strong-armed itself into being the lead agency in the SEPA/D.E.I.S. investigations for development at Saint Edward State Park (documentation attached). The City of Kenmore has everything to gain in a huge amount of taxes on development of a 90,000 square foot building and the marginal votes of 75 extended families of a disbanded Kenmore Little League in a city of 20,000 -- and does not care about State Parks. Attached to this email are a few of the documents that show City of Kenmore is creating liability for State Parks. My motivation is to protect Saint Edward State Park as a park first with great public access and a healthy eco-system, to protect State Parks as an entity, and to protect the jobs of the Rangers and additional employees, the jobs of the disappeared in anticipation of a pubic/private takeover of Saint Ed. I would hope that Mr. Thrasher will respond more expediently than December 30 to my PRR; which I want NOT REDACTED, which will take no time to forward. City of Kenmore has put huge time pressures on the busy people who use the park to understand what has transpired, to even know what is planned, January 5 at an unadvertised, barely announced public meeting that will disclose the lease agreement between a major developer (with a major impact to Saint Ed visitors) and State Parks. Has there been negotiation in the public interest? A partial collection only of documents that show the City process and lack of concern for State Parks is attached. I have documentation that the City presented major factual errors at least a half dozen times regarding playfield expansion. Michael Hankinson of State Parks likely unwittingly communicated City's errors as facts to the somewhat believing public and to the somewhat believing Parks Commissioners. Mr. Daniels SEPA/D.E.I.S. report on developing the core of park into a hotel/high tech conference center/ "internet barn"? is much more sophisticated than the City's playfield SEPA -- without flat out mistakes, but with "we assume," "approximately," "dry" regarding saturation measures taken at the height of drought, etc.. All the inaccuracies and obfuscations together create liability for State Parks, not the least, the flooding of Arrowhead Point homes, and a loss in public access to Saint Ed and a loss in State Parks jobs, from part time jobs and jobs spread thin, to loss in employee dignity. We are in the lobbyists' sticker lined path, lobbyists for City of Kenmore, lobbyist for Little League, lobbyist for developer who brought in one or two historical societies. The City and defunct Kenmore Little League brought development to the fore at the park, not State Parks. If Mr. Thrasher is not in the office, Don, please refer my PRR request to someone who can do the work of fulfilling a PRR in a timely fashion. Thank you.

From: Ellison, Becki (PARKS) Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 9:05 AM To: Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Cc: Ellison, Becki (PARKS) Subject: FW: Liability for State Parks as City of Kenmore takes SEPA lead. So, I request un-redacted material. Re: Typo in PRR request regarding Saint Edward State Park Importance: High

FYI

1111 Israel Rd. S.W. Olympia, WA 98504-2650 Telephone: (360) 902-8514 Fax: (360) 586-6651 MS: 42650

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 11:16 AM To: Herzog, Peter (PARKS); Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) Subject: Thank You!

Thank you Peter and Michael for another good call.

I'm feeling good about the pathway forward including both the Member Request through Representative Pollet and the language on updating the SESP CAMP to the Commission.

Thank you for both.

Have a great weekend.

(Attachments to follow starting next page)