Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 Note: names, outside of public officials, have been removed for privacy. First things first: * I support extending the one-year extension for consideration of rehab proposals for the seminary at St. Edward State Park. * If a citizens advisory committee is formed, I volunteer to be a member…”qualifications” below. I attended the public meeting held in Kenmore on August 25. A decade ago, when McMenamins submitted their proposal, I attended those meetings in support of it. I learned soooo much about the seminary (the park staff gave tours at the time), both from a building perspective, i.e., internal storm water collection system, and the people’s stories that went with it. A brother-in-law even attended school/seminary there. Mostly, I heard a vocal unreasonable opposition to the plan. A lawyer/bicyclist who was part of that group (and who was citing RCWs at the recent meeting) was particularly aggressive. In fact, I made my way to Normandy Park one snowy day for a commission hearing and he was there; he had the audacity to say to me, “I can’t believe you are still coming to these meetings,” suggesting, I suppose, that my support for the McMenamins was a lost cause. I believe the citizens of Kenmore woke up and realized what a gem they lost (thanks, in part, to the McMenamins construction in nearby Bothell) and turned out in force on August 25th to support the most recent turn of events. I was thrilled! And Daniels Real Estate appears to be just the right developer to take on this project in the vacuum left by the McMenamin brothers. At the August meeting, it was suggested that input be provided by a citizens advisory committee. While I think that the state parks’ public process in these matters is open and inclusive, should such a committee be formed, I volunteer to be a member: * I live in the Arrowhead neighborhood. Very honestly, if our neighborhood thinks a 100-room hotel will create traffic, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to commuters who will be avoiding I-405 and its HOT lanes once they open later this month. * I am a retired (early, due to the recession) civil engineer, with experience in wastewater, storm water (and I hold a current ESCL certification), environmental engineering, and development. As such, I understand that the footprint for construction will not encroach upon park visitors’ use of St. Edward. * I prefer truth to hyperbole. Thank you for continuing to include the public in your deliberations. I am very supportive of the current proposal to rehabilitate the building. As an Audubon member, my main concern is that the ability of the grounds to support wildlife and an outside experience for park users be maintained. Michael, Thank you for your prompt reply and responses to my questions. The SEELC proposal did include the building’s renovation and a program schedule. i’m sure (name removed) has our proposal if you’d be interested in reviewing it. i can’t seem to find it in my files. Currently, we use the outdoor spaces of the 1 Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 park. Because we don’t charge for our classes we can’t afford the rental costs. We stage a garage sale every spring to pay for the insurance required by the Park. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to talk to (name removed) about last weeks meeting. (I’ve lost my voice due to pneumonia, bummer:( ) There have been lots of emails flying around generated by the ‘Friends’ of the Park as you can imagine. I’m not sure what (name removed)’s take on the Daniels proposal is. I do think that it would be great if you joined us at our board meeting. I’ll let you know if that is possible and when. On Sep 1, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Hankinson, Michael (PARKS) <[email protected]> wrote: (name removed) It was wonderful seeing you last week. Thank you so much for coming to the meeting. I want to address some of your questions: 2) While I understand the preference for ownership prior to development, there are examples of development on land grant properties with 99 year leases. I am concerned that once developed the hotel could be sold to the highest bidder who has no appreciation for the values inherent in St. Eds. If there is a transfer of ownership from public to private there should be safeguards that would protect the park and its users. • Today, a 99 year lease is not possible by statute. We can only enter into 50 year leases maximum. Introducing a bill to change this law takes time and who knows if it will pass. Daniels would need more than 50 years, but I think he is entertaining this concept. Great idea, however, and we are currently pursuing a change in statute. • If the land is sold, State Parks will place deed restrictions on the property to ensure that a future buyer appreciates the value of Saint Edward. Deed restrictions will provide clear limitations. 3) If there could be some kind of partnership between Parks, Daniels Realty and Kenmore to restore the pool as part of the package it would be a highly valued amenity in our community. • Sadly, the pool building is beyond repair for reuse as a pool. A new building would be required. 4) Is it possible to include a percentage of the hotel’s profits to benefit the park’s maintenance, like an charitable endowment fund that would benefit the hotels and the park. Park maintenance is currently minimal. • Yes, a land exchange deal could incorporate this provision. I'm curious, did your SEELC proposal involve restoration of the building? The problem is that the building cannot be used "as is" beyond the rental of the dining hall. A new use of the building requires building, fire, and ADA code updates as well as seismic, plumbing, and electrical upgrades. The cost to simply stabilize the building ranges between 13 and 15 million dollars. 2 Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 The cost to make the building habitable for a new use is much higher. Without doubt, classroom space costs less to construct than a hotel, yet the cost to adaptively reuse the Seminary for classroom space would still be in the millions above stabilization. So far, the only economically viable proposal we received was associated with the Bastyr plan (2014). What kind of space requirements do you have in order for you to operate the SEELC? Let’s see what we can do. If you want me to join your group for a small meeting to discuss I’ll be there. : ) Thank you for your email. I hope to see you and (name removed) again soon. Call me anytime with questions. Michael Michael, I have attached a letter voicing my concerns regarding the proposed development of St. Edwards State Park. Thank you for your consideration. Dear Micheal Hankinson, I am concerned about the proposal to develop St. Edwards State Park for commercial use as a boutique destination hotel. For many years the park has served as a valuable outdoor space for the community and surrounding areas. Private development would forever jeopardize the public access to usable parklands that have been originally designated for public use. Although the developers plan to purchase the McDonald property adjacent to the park, it is not a fair trade to the citizens who use and access the park. The McDonald’s property is steep ravines and streams that are not accessible for the disabled and elderly. The area that the seminary building occupies is the most valuable for the state residents use. The uncertainty of future parks use warrants the park commission to reconsider the developer’s proposal. To outright buy state parkland, it puts the foot in the door for developers to bring future projects to the park. The developers have denied any interest in leasing the property, thus inviting private investors with financial interests. While it may seem like an easy solution to simply swap the land for the McDonald’s property, there will likely be litigation if you decided to pursue the developer’s proposal. The property that the seminary building occupies is more valuable than the existing structure itself. Preserving the state land for recreational and public use should valued above plans to simply develop the property. Please consider that once the land is sold, it will forever be lost to public. 3 Letters to State Parks Regarding the Seminary September 3, 2011 Mr. Michael Hankinson, Thank you for the opportunity to learn about the rehabilitation proposal for the Saint Edward Seminary at the workshop held on August 25th. I am in favor of the proposal Mr. Daniels presented and hope the Commission will extend the deadline for rehabilitating the Seminary building. Dear Mr. Hankinson, Please forward my comments, below, to the State Parks Commissioners for their consideration during tomorrow's meeting. I am also attaching my comments to this email, should that format be more convenient. September 2, 2015 Dear State Parks Commissioners, I am a Kenmore resident and frequent visitor to St. Edward State Park, and I am writing to request that you deny the proposed sale of St. Edward State Park property to a private developer. Selling off this land is not in the best interests of the people of Washington State. It has been said that the envisioned enterprise would be a “lodge,” similar to the great lodges built in some of the destination National Parks, such as Yellowstone, Mt.