I would like to chime in on the subject of the prior letters by Susan Gardner and Tom Fitzpatrick.

McMenamin’s could have been an ideal tenant and concept by my recollection, were it not for the following serious issues which needed solutions and funding mechanisms that have yet to materialize. Whatever new plan emerges, these challenges could/would still remain and need addressing.

I think McMenamin’s was interested, listened and decided the hurdles and associated timelines were too great.

There were more citizens expressing concerns on a variety of fronts than “a few bicyclists and play field advocates.”

First, Traffic volume impacts on Juanita Drive, and the Sammamish River bridge could/would need significant capacity relief related to any major occupancy growth. The recent traffic light addition on Juanita at the Park/Bastyr entrance/exit road has been very helpful. Bastyr, as I understand it, has taken steps to try to stagger their traffic flow, and have added BU bus transport for students to get to their Seattle facility.

Second, the volume of parking required … any significant paving would overtake much of the lawn that is aesthetic and enjoyable to the park, and structured (vertical parking) is expensive, and ought to be aesthetically consistent with the Seminary.

And finally, the issue of alcohol in the park seemed to hit a nerve with some of the objectors as well … I would however have deferred to examining McMenamin’s record for managing their facilities (et al) as a sample of what the public might have expected. I don’t have knowledge of what that record might be, good or bad or in between, but they’ve been very successful with their business model.

I look forward to learning more at the public meeting in January at the NUD meeting room.

William “Bill” Leak, Kenmore