Hello, I Am Writing As a Concerned Citizen Regarding St Edwards Park
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.