Thank you for attending our community meeting and for your participation. We look forward to our neighborhoods working together frequently in the future. And thank you for a great report on the activities in Meadowbrook!

Pam

The former substation site and Inverness Ravine are park owned lands that could be improved upon within the upcoming 2014 levy. That’s what our petition is requesting. The open space at Thornton Creek Elementary is park owned. Sure, Parks has been using that for playfields but that doesn’t change the fact that its owned by the School District and the District has the legal right to do with it what it wants as any property owner would.

As Polly points out, it was for “Thornton Creek or equivalent site.” On April 1st, the District made a decision to build on the Thornton Creek site given their cost analysis of different options. At some point the District had to make a decision in order to have the new school designed/built by 2015 as it stated in the levy. So, they’ve made that decision now. The District’s revised plan also include moving the new Thornton Creek program to the new building. That means only 650 students (MAX) would be in the new building. Sure, we don’t know what will ultimately happen to the existing Decatur building, but you seem to be ignoring these certain facts in your analysis. No one wants to see the playfields gone, but again, we have no design of what the site will/could be. Also, there’s not been any traffic analysis that’s been done. So, while it’s clear that things will be changing at the site and is very likely that the playfields will be impacted, your analysis seems a bit premature in my opinion.

Additionally, as I’ve told you before, the WCC is not in the business of deciding how best the School District should go about managing its capacity management. We have LOTS of Wedgwood kids stuck in portables as Wedgwood, View Ridge, Bryant AND Thornton Creek elementary schools are all overcrowded. Having wide open fields is great and preferable, but this is not the case at many schools. Is a new building going to solve every problem? Perhaps not. But its unacceptable for our kids to be stuck in portables.

In the end it comes down to these facts.
-The property is owned by the School District and they have the right to do with it what they want so long as they follow the appropriate process (which includes public review and public notice).
-Seattle voters approved a new school at the site “or equivalent,” although the District has decided upon the Thornton Creek site now.
-There is no design to review or critique yet. The District is just beginning a design.
-Current District plans only include moving and growing the Thornton Creek Elementary School program into the new building, which would be designed to hold a MAX of 650 students, not 1,000.

FYI, this is just my opinion and not any formal decision of the WCC or any other trustees.

Sharon May

Louisa is right about recess. Schools never have recess the first or last hours of the day. That leaves five hours. And you have two programs–the Option program with three recesses a day, and a regular attendance-area school (if that’s what it turns into) with one recess. Five hours would give two 20-minutes recesses per hour for a total of 10 recesses. If the Option program only had one recess (which they don’t) you would have, with a 1,000-student campus, 100 kids each recess on one artificial turf soccer field. With 3 recesses for the Option school, with 350 kids, you have the equivalent of 1,050 students plus the 650 regular kids, giving a total of 1,700 equivalent students, you’d have 170 kids on one soccer field. Did I figure that right?

Perhaps you and our other WCC board members don’t realize the scope of the School District’s plan. I’ve talked to a construction manager who does large commercial projects; he can’t see any way to have any significant open space if there are two buildings plus necessary parking for staff, plus interior roadways and sidewalks. So far, the District planners remain committed to a campus with the potential for 1,000 students on this site, plus teachers and staff. It remains to be seen how much impact an advisory committee will have.

If you do a thought experiment on how to schedule recess for 1,000 children, you may find that time is as much of a problem as the lack of space. For young children, recess is a requisite in order for learning to take place — not just something nice they can do without.

Many parents would not welcome the idea of such a large campus for their young children.

We need your help. Will you and the WCC board help us advocate for retaining this really important open space? There is no committee process or design inspiration that can make up for its loss and the awful traffic problems this proposal will cause if it is actually built.