(Rendering of new Alki Elementary entrance on north side of school)
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor
Testimony in the second Alki Elementary School rebuild appeal hearing is extending to a third day, though two days originally were expected to be enough.
That was the decision at the end of the second full day of testimony before city deputy hearing examiner Susan Drummond. She will decide whether to uphold the city’s decision to allow Seattle Public Schools to build the new, larger Alki Elementary with fewer parking spaces than zoning requires. The original design had no offstreet parking spaces, though 48 would be needed to comply with zoning. Nearby residents successfully appealed the city’s approval of the no-parking plan (as well as other “zoning departures” which were upheld). The district then proposed a new design with 15 spaces; the city approved it; a different group of nearby residents filed an appeal. That’s what’s being considered now. Here’s our report on the first day of testimony last Tuesday; here’s what happened on day 2, last Thursday:
DISTRICT WITNESS – PRIMARY ARCHITECT: The day began with the district’s main lawyer Katie Kendall of McCullough Hill questioning project architect Rebecca Hutchinson of Mahlum. Her testimony began with scene-setting regarding the new school’s north-facing entrance and the district’s agreement with Seattle Parks about joint use of the space between the school and the playground on the south side of Alki Playfield. That paved space was used for parking outside school hours but won’t be available for that use in the new campus design.
Hutchinson discussed other features of the new school, basically explaining why the district feels it’s needed, because of “educational deficiencies” of the old (now-demolished) Alki Elementary. Some of its features weren’t routinely part of school design decades ago – like “learning commons” spaces, “open spaces shared by a group of classrooms … for addressing a diversity of needs and diversity of teaching styles,” and enclosed small-group spaces.
Establishing that the new school’s footprint isn’t much bigger than the old one – 29,000 sf vs. 27,300 sf – Kendall asked what is absolutely necessary on the ground floor of an elementary school. Hutchinson said administration, kindergarten and early-learning facilities, the dining commons, delivery/unloading since the district brings prepared food to schools, music room/stage, the mechanical/electrical room. In fact, she said, they didn’t have enough room for everything they needed, so they removed two child-care classrooms, possible because neighboring Alki Community Center has been providing child care anyway. “Is there anything else SPS could remove without negatively affecting educational goals?” Kendall asked. The architect said no. Why did they request the zoning exception for parking? Hutchinson said 48 spaces would take up half the buildable area, so “a school would not be feasible on this site.”
But the previous appeal ruling required the city and district to “revisit” the parking issue, so, Hutchinson said, they looked at options. Taking nearby residential property by condemnation – 15 apartments and 2 houses – was ruled out. What about a garage? If above-ground, that would have increased the height; if underground, they would “basically be making a bathtub because of the (high) water table,” requiring dewatering. A garage could have added $10 million to the cost (at least $67 million). But those aren’t the only considerations that ruled out a garage; security concerns (“increased potential for uninvited persons”) and the site space needed for an entry also were cited.
(New design proposal for Alki Elementary, with 15 parking spaces in southwest corner of site)
Kendall asked Hutchinson what was removed and/or changed to make room for the 15 spaces they did add on the southwest side of the site. A dedicated delivery area and a loading platform “for staff to get a bit of height when dumping waste into bins” were removed. The preschool entrance was combined with an “emergency egress” area. Secure bicycle storage was reconfigured and slightly reduced; the preschool play area also was slightly reduced; the waste receptacles and transformer were moved. “This is all we could sacrifice without (failing to meet) educational goals.” Why weren’t those changes made before? Kendall asked. Hutchinson said those were “not superfluous elements.”
Parking-supply discussion in the case has returned repeatedly to the issue of how many ADA spaces are needed; the new plan provides one. Hutchinson explained that it’s 8 feet wide, with an 8-foot loading area, so it can accommodate a vehicle as large as a van, as required since there’s just one space. If determined eventually that they should have two, she added, they’d designate the space on the other side of the loading zone.
Talk turned to the pickup/dropoff zone along 59th for the school in general. Hutchinson noted that the design is in line with the city document Best Practices for School Traffic Design (also mentioned in Tuesday testimony), including the philosophy of “not creating private-car infrastructure,” encouraging parents to park on nearby streets and walk the final block or so with their kids, and to avoid bus loading/unloading happening on schoo grounds: “Space on school property should be reserved for school functions.”
The appellants’ lawyer Audrey Clungeon of Bricklin & Newman then questioned Hutchinson. Clungeon focused on the “educational need” for the larger new school. Could a smaller school meet educational needs? Hutchinson observed that the district now says it’s harder to have adequate support staff at smaller schools. Clungeon tried to elicit whether more space for parking could be found under a different design. “The current proposal is the minimum footprint,” Hutchinson insisted. She did acknowledge that the school’s height was limited by the settlement in one of the previous departure appeals (that appellant told WSB it specifically involved reducing the height of the school’s mechanical penthouse by up to four feet). She also said the district had never talked with Seattle Parks about using any of their adjacent land for parking. The campus could have room for more parking if it didn’t include preschool classrooms, Hutchinson acknowledged, a feature that not all elementary schools incorporate.
DISTRICT WITNESS – ALKI ELEMENTARY’S PRINCIPAL: One other point that emerged in questioning of Hutchinson, as well as the next witness, fourth-year Alki Elementary principal Mason Skeffington (who testified via Zoom) – the school may only have 271 students enrolled now but it’s had more than 400 as recently as 2015-2016. Early in his testimony, Skeffington detailed the steady enrollment decline from that year – down to 359 the fall before the pandemic, 321 the next year, 295 last year, projected to gain only one next school year (272). His current staff totals 33, including a crossing guard. While at the old school, most would park in the lot on the south side – which would fill up by 7:25, half an hour before school starts – with spillover on 59th, where he said he could usually see “a few spots” open, from his office window. No current staff has requested an ADA stall.
The school did not have a formal Transportation Management Plan, but a ‘traffic-flow plan” was developed and communicated to parents each year, Skeffington said. He talked about the sometimes chaotic scene at 59th/Stevens, with many parents coming in eastbound on Stevens. How did he end up out directing traffic in the morning? He explained that it started with the retirement of a “beloved teacher” who was usually out keeping an eye on crossing guards. But, he added, it’s also “an opportunity to connect with families.” Kendall asked whether he agreed with the appellants’ transportation-consultant witness that school-bus ridership is in decline. Skeffington said the old school had two and a half daily busloads, and it’s three and a half at the interim site at Schmitz Park. He voiced optimism regarding implementation of the Transportation Management Plan that consulting firm Transpo has drafted, including scheduling big events in multiple sessions so the entire community of students and families isn’t converging at once.
More numbers: A larger new Alki will likely have 65 to 75 staffers – an estimate on which he said he was consulted – plus five to 15 volunteers, interns, and others circulating through daily.
In cross-examination of Skeffington, Clungeon mostly went back over a few points central to the appellants’ case – enrollment declining even before COVID, not enough on-site parking to accommodate all staff at the old Alki Elementary (while the Schmitz Park campus has 44 spaces for those 33 staffers), no preschool at the old school (though preschoolers were at Alki Community Center next door), the fact he was out directing traffic though he had no contractual obligation to do so.
APPELLANT’S WITNESS, NEIGHBOR WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND: Next witness called was Robert Laird, who said he has lived across 59th and a bit south of the school for more than half a century. Professionally, he spent decades with what was the city Department of Construction and Land Use before retiring 8+ years ago. He said that as a neighbor he has had a close-up view of how school dropoff and pickup goes, and regarding the larger new school, he feels it “will be a mess.” It was that way already, he contended, with drivers ignoring signage, buses’ presence turning 59th into a “one-way street,” and high parking utilization meaning “nobody can pull over” to let other vehicles get by. Mornings are smoother than afternoons, Laird said.
He said he wishes SPS was rebuilding at the same size and questioned the need for a larger school, saying the neighborhood has fewer children than it used to, even though it has densified, with townhouses replacing many single-family houses: “I was surprised when (I heard) they were going to build a school that size there.” Assuming the district would have to expand boundaries to draw in more students and fill a larger school, he would expect to see more people driving. And that would mean more people looking for parking, Clungeon suggested. What about the Transportation Management Plan? “In my experience in code enforcement, people are going to do what they do … Parents get so much communication from schools, they just kind of round-file it.” Regarding area traffic in general, Laird said, “I avoid 60th like the plague” – one block west of the school – because it’s two-way traffic trying to get by in one lane, with people parked on both sides, and in general he didn’t leave the house during school dropoff and pickup times “unless I absolutely (had) to.” He too mentioned the Metro service level in the area: “The bus service down there has gotten worse and worse … I don’t know how realistic it is to expect a lot of people to take the bus” when routes including the 56 and 57 have been cut back. The Alki Parking Overlay – city code requiring one and a half spaces per residential unit in the Alki area – got a mention too.
In cross-examination, Kendall scrutinized Laird’s assessment of the traffic flow – in which he said his primary observations of 60th SW were when he was out walking his dog – and why parking would be a major issue during pickup/dropoff times. Families linger in the afternoon to play, he replied. She also asked about his belief that the Transportation Management Plan wouldn’t be followed. “Call me a cynic because I worked in code enforcement – no.”
After lunch, proceedings hopped back over to the district’s case.
DISTRICT WITNESS, TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT: Tod McBryan from Heffron Transportation, which did transportation/parking studies for the project – before and after the first appeal – was the next witness called. He said he has worked on more than 95 Seattle Public Schools projects at 60 different sites, including this one. Regarding the various area residents who had gloomier views of the traffic and parking around the site than his reports suggest, he said “each individual’s personal observations” are “not surprising” but “those localized experinces aren’t necessarily representative of the entire study area.” He also contended the size of the onsite parking lot wouldn’t have a major effort on pickup or dropoff. McBryan also took issue with the appellant’s transportation-consultant witness Gary Norris contending the school would need .88 parking spaces per student, calling that “absurd,” same word he used to describe Norris’s suggestion at one point that the space for and pace of dropoff/pickup could take six hours. Heffron’s reports have concluded that there’s adequate parking in the neighborhood, and for those who think they didn’t study the neighborhood at relevant times, he said Heffron had reviewed aerials from the years when Alki had 100+ more students than it does now. Even with 500+ students and 44 preschoolers, plus up to 75 employees, they estimate nearby parking would see up to 73 percent utilization – 12 percent below what the city considers maxed out. For all the various questions that others have raised about whether they surveyed the area at relevant times and in comparable conditions, McBryan insisted that they had taken all possibilities into consideration, and that the 2023 analysis they did post-appeal showed similar results to the 2021 studies – enough open parking to handle the demand. Even in the summer, he said morning traffic in the study area was 56 percent utilized, at most. The only time they found the maxed-out level – 85 percent usage – was on summer evenings.
Kendall asked McBryan for his conclusions on how the project would affect parking. He said they projected it would add up to 51 vehicles to street parking. What about the suggestions they can’t accurately assess that without school being in session? He said 90 percent of the projects they evaluate are projections for conditions that aren’t yet in existence. Montlake Elementary was brought up again – another SPS project with no offstreet parking planned. McBryan disagreed with Norris’s assessment that Montlake differed significantly from Alki: “Not a perfect comparison but there are similarities,” such as neighborhood roads with a single travel lane. Should an onsite parking lot be used for pickup/dropoff? asked Kendall. Generally not, said McBryan. Did he know of any school Transportation Management Plans that worked particularly well? Cougar Mountain Middle School in Issaquah, he said – with “valet-style pickup.” Any efficient dropoff/pickup in Seattle Public Schools? McBryan said “valet-style” was also used at Queen Anne Elementary.
Other previously discussed points that Kendall had him address included: The Alki Parking Overlay requirement for a space and a half per residential unit – that’s a relic of its time, implemented in the 1990s, and not necessarily relevant, McBryan said. Regarding Norris’s testimony that more families are driving to school, McBryan said they’ve seen some “increase in automobile load” in the past 10 years but “not all schools,” and he suggested contributing factors to the numbers Norris had shown included reliability problems post-pandemic. Their stats were comparable regarding additional car trips, he allowed. But not the load-unload time – a nine-space load zone with 33 seconds per dropoff/pickup would “accommodate 200 cars in 15 minutes,” and there’s a possibility the load zone could be extended further north. He said Norris’s estimate of additional pedestrian crossings was more than twice as high as his. He also disagreed that the 59th/Stevens intersection, where there’s a crossing guard, is dangerous. Heffron projects all nearby intersections will “remain at acceptable levels of service,” with some congestion continuing around the school. From there, they went through more stats and data. And as to Laird’s skepticism that parents would follow instructions, he suggested they might be influenced by “peer pressure, other parents will be irritated if some parents don’t follow the rules.”
Clungeon challenged some of McBryan’s numbers when it was her turn to question him. He had said the school would generate “422 trips – 200 cars out, 222 cars in – are there 222 spaces available?” His reply, “No, but all trips don’t require a parking space.” Regarding comparisons to other schools, she asked whether any of the others are “in proximity to a large tourist attraction like Alki Beach?” McBryan noted that Montlake is close to the University of Washington and its hospital [map]. To the repeated point that Alki’s future added preschool posed special transportation-related challenges, Clungeon asked if any of the other mentioned schools had preschools; McBryan wasn’t sure. Would providing the zoning-required 48 spaces at Alki mean more parking available for pickup and dropoff? Only if it’s not already being used for parking, McBryan replied. Earlier, he had mentioned the SDOT “School Streets,” temporary daily closures of some streets near schools. Do those, or Healthy Streets, eliminate parking? McBryan said he’s aware of some parking loss with the Alki Point Healthy Street. When Kendall then got a chance for followup questions, it was noted that’s about half a mile from the school. (Still, Clungeon noted in her followup questioning a short time later, more than 50 spaces are being removed there.) Also noted, the Montlake Elementary area has RPZ restrictions because of the school/hospital proximity.
APPELLANT WITNESS, NEARBY RESIDENT WITH PRESCHOOL BACKGROUND: Following the afternoon break, the next witness was Judy Hall, who said she has lived across 59th from Alki Elementary for almost 50 years. She discussed a midblock-access alley on her side of the street, just south of the school, that she said has led to some near-misses involving children who walk on that side of the street from Admiral Way. The alley is posted as 10 mph but she says drivers go faster: “You’re not supposed to be going the speeds that they’re going.” She also talked about the difficulty of corralling small children, citing her experience in early-childhood education before retiring four years ago from a career with West Seattle’s cooperative-preschool system. She also spoke about the parking crunch on 59th. Is safe, close parking important for families with preschoolers? asked Clungeon; Hall said yes. Overall, she summarized, the situation is “already chaotic … I’m not a traffic evaluator but … it’s overly busy … I live there, I see it every day.” Beach visitors park on 59th too, Hall added.
APPELLANT WITNESS, ANOTHER NEARBY RESIDENT WITH PRESCHOOL BACKGROUND: The final witness of the day was Shauna Causey, a nearby resident who was one of the parties to the first appeal, testifying via Zoom. She described herself as a mother of three, 34-year resident of the neighborhood, who founded an education-tech company that led to a bricks-and-mortar preschool in her Alki home that is now operating on Whidbey Island. Causey said a lack of parking is one of the reasons she didn’t keep the Alki school open – safety concerns, as well as neighbors’ frustration about pickup and dropoff in front of their houses. She said her home is south and upslope from the east side of the school, looking toward 58th SW, and that traffic and parking “have been a consistent problem” in the area, sometimes resulting in “gridlock.” In Upper Alki, she said, “people treat Admiral Way like it’s the Autobahn,” saying all three of her children have had close calls in the area.
Causey said she supports Seattle Public Schools and voted for the levy that funded this project, but she feels the school should be smaller. She started a petition last year asking that parking be added to the project, and said she got more than 450 signatures, quickly. Noting that this is the second appeal of the zoning exceptions but the third appeal overall (an environmental appeal was rejected), she said, “We’re trying to say ‘this doesn’t work for our community, please put something in (that does).” She said she had surveyed the neighborhood on foot and found no opn parking spaces between 1 and 3 pm in the afternoon. Clungeon asked about the feasibility of walking preschoolers from a parked car more than 800 feet away. “I wouldn’t be comfortable,” especially for parents with multiple young kids, Causey replied, saying that safety “is one of the hardest things” about the education industry, and it’s something that preschoolers are just learning about. But she said parking is not the issue – the fact the designers had such a challenge fitting features into the site is further proof that the 1.4-acre parcel “is not appropriate for this size of a school. … I’m incredibly disappointed with SPS and this plan.” Causey also suggested that Alki Beach’s status as a tourist attraction needed to be examined further in this case – there are “not a lot of places to park or even get around down here because of an old-growth forest on one side [Schmitz Preserve Park], a major tourist attraction that doesn’t have its own parking.” She said what she observed on her walking surveys runs counter to the Heffron studies showing adequate available onstreet parking.
In cross-examination, Kendall contended that it’s not correct to suggest the school is “doubling” in size, because earlier testimony indicated it had 410 students a decade ago, with a capacity of 370 (100 more than current enrollment). Kendall also asked whether Causey had confirmed that all her petition signers were from Alki – “I asked for their cross-streets,” she replied, “and some were five or six streets over.” Kendall then noted the recent letter-writing campaign by other parents saying parking concerns (and others) are not reasons to delay the project. And she asked if Causey had seen the Heffron photos supporting the parking study – “would you say those are accurate?” Causey retorted that as a neighborhood resident she sees what’s happening there daily, “not just a snapshot of every six months.”
WHAT’S NEXT: Both sides still have witnesses remaining, so that’s why they needed to extend the hearing another day. Testimony will resume at 9 am tomorrow (Monday, June 3) in the hearing room on the 40th floor of the Seattle Municipal Tower (spectators are allowed, or you can listen in by phone). If testimony has to go to a fourth day, Tuesday was discussed as a possibility. Once the hearing ends, hearing examiner Drummond will issue a written decision, typically after a few weeks.
| 23 COMMENTS