As you can see in the comments on this CHS Community Post in opposition to the project, there is a solid split on the proposal to build a five-level parking garage beneath North Capitol Hill’s Holy Names Academy and a new surface parking lot to the girls private high school’s north. As we reported in January, supporters and families at the school say that street parking in the neighborhood is overwhelmed. Those in opposition — mostly neighbors of the 110-year-old campus — say the massive project is not necessary, decry the loss of the school’s north lawn, and say the permitting should not proceed without further environmental review.
Land Use Application to allow a new 2-story gymnasium with below grade parking for 246 vehicles (Holy Names Academy). An additional 32 parking spaces to be provided in a new surface parking lot, 12 existing spaces to be removed for a total of 307 parking spaces. Review includes partial demolition of existing gymnasium.
With public comment on the key Master Use portion of the process to permit the construction project slated to end today, Wednesday, February 28th, here is a look at some of the comments submitted on both sides of the proposal. UPDATE 2:57 PM: The city tells us the comment period has, indeed, been extended to March 14th.
Of the 67 public comments submitted, supporters who support the project moving out without a costly environmental review outweigh those in opposition by around seven to three. Many in support have students among the 700 young women who attend the academy. Most in opposition live nearby.
Here are some examples comments from the supporters:
And a group of snippets from public comment calling for further review:
If you want to weigh in on the project, you can email [email protected] before the deadline and reference Project #3029687. We have also embedded the SEPA Environmental Checklist for the project if you would like to, you know, include some facts and figures in your comments.
Would those who are opposed be supportive if the school were being built new and not including any parking? or would they be demanding an underground parking garage?
Would those that are in support of this project still be in support of it if it weren’t a school building – but, say an apartment building?
I’d be in support of this planned parking if this were an apartment building. I”m certain I”m not alone.
Ironic that a school needs so much parking, but you can build an apodment without any. Don’t they believe in school buses at holy names ?!
I don’t personally care much how much underground parking they build, but it would be a real shame if that greenspace along Aloha Ave disappears (they want to build a surface parking lot on top of it, blech). Even if it’s not publicly accessible it still adds to the beauty of the street.
Friends and Neighbors,
I want to be sure that you have accurate information about our proposed plans to provide more parking at Holy Names Academy. There have been statements made recently that Holy Names Academy is seeking an “exemption” or “waiver” from the City’s environmental review (or SEPA) process. That is not accurate. We are not seeking any exemption or waiver. Our application will be reviewed by City Staff under all City regulations including SEPA
The following statement from our Architect should be helpful:
“I want to confirm that the Holy Names Academy Application to the City does not include any request for a waiver or exemption from the City’s SEPA environmental review process. The City will review the Application under SEPA and many other City regulations. In addition to the detailed information about the plans that is part of the Application, we have also submitted some technical reports to the City. We expect substantial review by City Staff as well as City requests for additional information from us and our consultants.” John Faley, Architect, Broderick Architects.
Elizabeth Swift
Head of School and Principal
Holy Names Academy
What would be more interesting to those that live nearby or who have kids that walk to school in that area is what you are doing to reduce the number of drivers, not make it easier for them to park. The supportive comments attached to the planning application come across of those of a wealthly car centric class.
Anecdotally the convergence of Meany, St Joes and Holy Names creates a lot of traffic – some of which seems to believe it has right of way no matter what. Almost all of Meany walks, rides or takes the bus. Perhaps the young ladies of Holy Names can visit sometime to see how public transport works in a big city
@Nope – thank you!!!
More “parking” is not the answer — it just INCREASES the amount of vehicles in our area. This is SUCH a great time to be a forward thinking progressive organization that cares about the impact it has on the neighborhood and community is SHARES with others.
Helping create paradigm shifts in thinking from “autocentric” to “alternative forms of transportation” is VERY doable.
I’ve written my letter to the city and hope this project will END.
Studies have shown that making accessibility to parking easier, only encourages more driving:
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/01/the-strongest-case-yet-that-excessive-parking-causes-more-driving/423663/
This proposal is costly, short-sighted, and out-of-step with the long-term vision of Seattle and future of transportation. When the city is investing in and expanding public transit and other alternatives, and innovations such as ride-sharing and driver-less vehicles are fundamentally changing the need for parking, we should be looking to our educational institutions to be more forward-thinking.