Why Do People Who Know Little about SPS Write About It?
I'll just start off saying the classroom space SPS would give up is pre-K. Lamentable but not totally necessary for SPS' legal mission.
While Seattle Public Schools didn’t directly confirm that it was considering removing early learning facilities from the plans for Alki Elementary, saying only that the district is continuing to explore options, multiple sources with close ties to the district confirmed that option is on the table.
I understand that the Urbanist does not like car-oriented society and pushes for more public/private options (like bicycles). Here's the thing that I always say - Seattle is both geographically challenged and weather challenged. That truly is important in the discussion.
Let's talk about what the author of the article, Ryan
Packer, either didn't know about or didn't ask. He also seemed to
overlook that the district wanted a departure for bicycle parking as
well.
1) The article says what is at issue is "a small number of parking stalls" but the zoning says that the school should have 48 which is not a small amount. And gasp! this will add delays and costs to the project. SPS knew that going into the request for the zoning departure so that's on them.
2) Does Mr. Packer know this is a very large elementary with many more students and staff?
While teachers are expected to make due (sic) with transit, walking, biking, or parking elsewhere, Seattle’s code assumes that would be too much to ask for members of the general public attending events at the school.
The issue is NOT truly about whether parents or others can attend events at the school. It's about having several ADA parking spots actually on the grounds (and not the sole one across the street) as well as some parking for staff (there are people who work at schools who have health/disability issues).
3) Off-street parking isn’t the only area in which the district regularly has to apply for departures when constructing schools: adding HVAC systems to the roofs of buildings in residential neighborhoods also regularly requires a departure, as does the simple act of installing an electronic sign in front of a school to notify families of upcoming events.
"The simple act of an electronic sign?" I'm supposing Mr. Packer never lived next to a school with an electronic sign - it's not a simple issue.
3) In her analysis, deputy hearing examiner Susan Drummond gave substantial weight to the testimony of the appellants regarding the availability of parking on both city streets and the informal, unmarked lot that formerly existed adjacent to the former school building.
That "informal lot" is owned by the City. Woe be it to the person who decides that just because the lot isn't marked, it might not be important to make sure you can actually use it. Or be sure to tell people who might think to use it if they are going to Alki Elementary that they could be ticketed.
4) In handing the issue back to SDCI, Drummond went to far as to suggest that the district could consider acquiring existing homes to the south of Alki Elementary to demolish them and make room for 48 parking stalls. “The School District did not identify underground parking as an option and while it prefers not to acquire local residences for the school, it did not detail why land acquisition is otherwise infeasible,” she wrote.
I had not seen this issue raised. Buy land for parking? SPS has no money for that. I'd bet the underground garage would be cheaper.
5) If a King County judge doesn’t force Seattle Schools to pursue that option after this week’s hearing by dismissing the case, resolving the issue could still take months, likely pushing back the construction timeline and leaving kids who would be attending Alki at a temporary school. Those delays, and added changes to building designs, add costs to a district that is already facing a significant revenue shortfall.
Yes, apparently there was a hearing today in King County Superior Court, the hearing brought by SPS. However,
While SDCI agreed with the decision to leave out parking at Alki, the City of Seattle argues that the decision can’t yet be appealed in court because it’s not final, and that it’s up to SDCI to provide updated guidance around the issue of parking.
Well, sounds like that hearing was a waste of time and money then.
5) Sigh. Mr. Packer seems unaware that operations and capital funds are separate. And even as the operating budget is in trouble, the capital fund is rolling in money. They are still getting income from capital levies from years ago.
6) The larger issue being highlighted at Alki is the need to reduce code departures that result in appeals like this in the first place by reforming Seattle’s land use code to accurately reflect current educational needs. One of the loudest voices for doing just that has been Seattle’s school traffic safety committee. That committee cited a figure of $2.5 million per year from the district’s school construction budget that could be saved if the district didn’t have to apply for a laundry list of departures on every project.
A spokesperson for SDCI confirmed that early work is underway to revise the city’s land use code when it comes to schools, with the process currently set to take around a year.
Go send Director Rankin to City Hall to advocate for that change. She's done a great job at the Legislature.
Comments
Smith
The "spandex bike bro" comment is particularly inappropriate as it describes almost no one at the Urbanist, most especially Ryan. I question allowing such name-calling comments to remain up. Similarly with the comment saying "he doesn't know what it is like taking elementary aged children to school". This is pure bad-faith conjecture.