Edmonton (Alta.) - 2003 - Future school sites study_background report

C

m

T

Y

D

F

E

D

M

!H T

BACKGROUND REPORT Corporate Planning and Policy Section (I

I@D

July 2, 2003

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

LIBRARY

r

@

PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT

DO NOT REMOVE FROM LOSHARY

N

On July 2nd, 2003, Edmonton City Council approved the Future School Sites Study Report and its recommendations. The "Future School Sites Study Summary Report" was the key output of the project. The Council Agenda and Minutes to this meeting are available on the City's website at: http://www.edmonton.calcorpserviceslcityclerklmeetingslcouncil_meetings.html

For further information, please contact Planning and Development Department staff: Willard Hughes (780) 496-6223 willard.hughes(iedmonton.ca

Doug Kostashuk

(780) 496-6121 doug.kostashuk(diedmonton.ca

Planning and Development Department 5t h Floor, 10250 - 101 Street NW

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3P4

EDMONTON FUTURE SCHOOL SITES STUDY BACKGROUND REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An enhanced version of this Executive Summary is found in the Future School Sites Study Summary Report, approved by City Council on July 2, 2003. More substantial details concerning the evolution of that Report and its contents are provided in this document, the FutureSchool Sites Study Background Report.

Introduction Increasing concern in newly developing areas of the city over the lack of timely delivery of schools to residents and the increased number of longstanding vacant school sites led Edmonton City Council to ask the Planning and Development Department to undertake a study in an effort to improve the delivery of school sites.

To undertake this study, the Planning and Development Department assembled a team of professionals with a direct involvement in school site planning. The Future School Sites Study (FSSS) Working Committee is comprised of representatives from:

* Alberta government departments . * *

*

Edmonton Public and Catholic School Boards Urban Development Institute Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues City of Edmonton departments

Future School Sites Study Process The FSSS Working Committee initiated a three-phase process for development of a Future School Sites strategy to provide school sites in future communities: * * *

Develop a Vision Develop a Strategy Final Product for Council

Phase One - Develop a Vision: Two visioning workshop sessions resulted in the development of a FSSS Vision: School sites in communities of the future will be centrally located, multi-use community knowledge campuses that serve students and learners of all ages and house a range of complementary recreational, community and public services. They will be beacons at the heart of the community that are relevant, adaptive, flexible and accessible.

SI

Phase Two - Develop a Strategy / Model:

FSSS Working Committee efforts shifted to the development of a strategy to implement the preferred vision. This included consideration of a wide range of factors influencing school site decision-making.

Surveys of various Canadian municipal jurisdictions were undertaken. Best practice research was done. Expertise information and wisdom from the FSSS Working Committee was brought to the table including updates from various studies and ongoing activities from the committee members. Information was also considered from relevant parallel initiatives including the ongoing Provincial Minister's School Symposium.

Study Findings: The FSSS Working Committee reached consensus on the following three general findings: *

The concept of Joint Use of school and park sites is good.

*

The Community Knowledge Campus (CKC) concept is desirable as a means of enhancing a community focal point.

*

There will continue to be a shift to community level school sites serving clusters of neighbourhoods.

Model for School/CKC Sites: The FSSS Vision [hereafter referred to as the Vision or CKC Vision] in combination with the Study Findings provided the foundation for development of a model for the provision of school sites in future communities.

The FSSS Model [hereafter referred to as the Model or CKC Model] is intended for use by all parties in the business of school site planning and development. It will serve as a guide for planning the placement of school sites in future communities. The Model is consistent with City

plans, policies and directives including the Municipal Development Plan, and the Integrated Services Strategy's community hubs concept. No changes to provincial or municipal legislation are required to apply the Model.

The Model, developed by the FSSS Working Committee, is comprised of two parts. Part One contains the Vision and Conceptual Model. Part Two contains Land Use Planning Process Requirements and Design Guidelines.

Part One (page iv) contains the Vision, which developed the CKC concept as a focal point of a community. The Conceptual Model considers the Vision and Study Findings and distributes the future sites among three levels - neighbourhood, community and district.

ii

The scale and intensity of the school / CKC will be proportionate to the catchment area being served. The Model is intended to serve as a flexible guide and the eventual distribution will be largely determined by the School/CKC Needs Assessment identified in Part Two. Part Two (page v) of the Model contains Land Use PlanningProcess Requirements and Design Guidelines that are to be used by Plan proponents in developing plans. A very important element is the School/CKC Needs Assessment, a proposed new information requirement in the planning process. The Needs Assessment will provide a clear scan of the environment of future school and lifelong learning needs, along with potential CKC partnerships, thereby more effectively delivering educational and other potential services to area residents in a more timely manner.

Part Two also contains two groupings of Design Guidelines. Firstly, Off-Site Location Guidelines list location criteria for providing school / CKC sites in new communities including items such as central location, accessibility and the like. Secondly, On-Site Design Guidelines provide some direction relating to the facilities/uses on the CKC site including such items as safety, shared parking, design innovation that will better enhance safe inter-action within the community that it serves. Lastly, Land Use PlanningProcesses/Tools contain a list of relevant tools/legislation to consider/address in developing a Plan.

ill

Std

'

Model for the Provision of School / CKC Sites in Future Communities Note: To assist in the implementation of the FSSS Vision, the Model consists of two parts:

...........

Future School Sites Study Vision School sites in communities of the future will be centrally located, multi-use "community knowledge campuses" (CKC) that serve students and learners of all ages and house a range of complementary recreational, community and public services. They will be "beacons" at the heart of the community that are relevant, adaptive, flexible and accessible.

Source: Visioning Workshop, December 2001

Part One - Conceptual Model - three levels ofschool/CKC sites (neighbourhood,community and district) Part Two - CKC Land Use Planning Processand Design Guidelines - guidelinesfor preparationofPlans

Part One

-

Conceptual Model

This Model serves as a guidefor planningthe placement of school sites in future communities. It also provides a guidefor inclusion ofjoint use park sites andcreates the opportunityfor additionalpotential school site partnership.The school/CKC will be proportionatein scale/intensityto the area being served.

The Model is intendedto be aflexible guide that can be easily evised to respond to changing needs working closely with PartTwo, particularlythe required "School /CKC Needs Assessment ". This Model can work with or withoutpartnerships.

neighbourhood level

community level

district level

a. definition Service delivery range is up to approximately 5.000 persons within a single, containedneighbourhoodunit, within a NeighbourhoodStructure Plan.

a.definition Service delivery range is two or more neighbourhoods of 5-20,000 persons within a NeighbourhoodStructure Planor NeighbourhoodAreaStructure Plan.

a. definition Service delivery range is two or more communities with a population range of 20,000+persons within an Area Structure Plan or a Servicing Concept Design Brief

The School/CKC will locate near the centre of the community to serve clusters of adjacent include Itwill

The School/CKC will generally not occur, except for unique situations (e.g. isolated or large neighbourhood).

Generally, there will be one park perneeighbourhoods.

The School (all levels)/CKC will locate inthe centre of the district or sector inadistinct

campus style. It will include

opportunities for a limited range

neighbourhood.

opportunities for a range of

of partnership uses as per MGA

site and can include awider range of CKC partners on adjacent nonreserve land.

c. potential partnership continuum PARTNER

TRADITIONAL SCHOOL

and will CKC partnerships include dis tri ct level parks.

limits. It includes ajoint use park

i UNRESTRICTED

It can include a wider range of CKC partners, with limitations on reserve land.

c.potential partnership continuum

c. potential partnership continuum

PARTNERS PARTNER

PARTNER

I

I

TRADITIONAL SCHOOL Note:

of the MGA. Other CKC CKC partners on Municipal Reserve land are limited to school/park/rucreation"restrictions

partnershipsare encouraged,but must locate on non-reserve land (orrequire MunicipalReserve designation removal).

[MunicipalReserve provisions are currently underProvincialreview].

UNRESTRICTED PARTNERS

TRADITIONAL SCHOOL

UNRESTRICTED PARTNERS

Scool

he following are land use planning process

On-Site Design Guidelines for School / CKC Sites and

,'wio

Srequirements and design guidelines for use by

plan proponents in providing school / CKC sites in o)

future communities.

School / CKC Needs

NEEDs

*

01

Assessment

ASSESSMENT

*

*

*

* *

be required with any structure plan submission (Plan Terms of Reference) and prepared by the proponent of the Plan in collaboration with stakeholders (municipality education providers, any prospective school partners, landowners and residents, EFCL, known community

*

and sling sense ofplace; and contribute to a safe and healthy community which promotes fundamentalsof 'smart choice 'such as options, vitality viability and access. They shall comply with CPTED principles and consider innovative designformats, including multi-level buildings to maximize land efficiency

related to demographics, neighborhood life cycle; enhancethetimelydeliveryofaschool / CKCsitein a manner that best matches community need and optimizes

k1c ro

o

be updated at various planning stages to best meet changing needs.

J

*

*

could include sharedfacilities between education providers or other 'MGA compatible 'partners;or involve a wider range of partners on adjacent non reserve lands; Free-standing schools, or multi-use schools with CKC partners,shall strive to enhance a community focal point

maximize awareness and opportunityfor successfully meeting future community educational need, including linkages with existing adjacent communities; use current student generation numbers, undertake projectionsand scenarios ofexpectedfacility timing, issues

(%

*

lifelong learning considerations, evening hour operations other unique needs, etc.; Should provide safe and sufficient drop off locations, off street parking and loading, access/egress points; Should encourage the sharing offacility infrastructure, in the CKC concept, amongst potential partners, in order to maximize efficiencies of land, resourcesand services; this

intelrests);

"ow%

*

Site size and configuration, including park component, range ofpotentialfuture needs; such as shared parking,

the efficient use of land resources; *

Facilities

,

shall be designed with flexibility to accommodate afull

A Needs Assessment "scan" is an examinationoffuture school needs, and any potential projectedpartnership opportunities which provides aframeworkfor the distribution of school / CKC sites within a new Plan area, at the neighbourhood (N), community (C) and district (D) levels (as per Part One of the Model).

It will... *

L

K

c

CIntegrated

Land Use Planning

Processes/Tools

City - Municipal Development Plan, Structure Plans, Services Strategy;

Off-Site Location

Zoning Bylaw, Urban Services Zone (US) provides sufficient

Guidelines for School/ CKC Sites

flexibilityforthe development ofschools andan appropriate range of uses / partners, andflexibility also in

builtform/design options, while the Direct Control (DC2) Zone may at times be desirable to ensure all issues addressed the with the arise with circumstancesarise unique circumstances where unique addressedwhere scale / use ofdevelopment.

Should be located such that it can be easily serviced and available early in the development of the community; Should be located central to a cluster or grouping of *

neighborhoods, and where possible central to attendance (catchment) areas: Should be doublefronting where possible, along a transit route, and in proximity to other services; class offmrontage (local, collector, arterial) will depend upon the nature of the CKC, but preferably thefrontage should locate on collector roadway; Should be highly accessible andprovide sufficient and safe pedestrian /bicycle linkage throughout the neighborhood/community and promote walkability; where possible, ensure connection to a comprehensive open space / pathway system.

*

V

Province - The Municipal Government Act (MGA) regulatesthe use ofReserve land for park, recreation and school purposes. Includes a remedy to discharge reserve, where CKC may conflict with the MGA. Partnerships - Provisions ofthe Joint Use Agreement will provide aframework for ongoing operations and linkages with abutting parkland and community league facilities. Additional private agreements may also be required,dependent upon the nature of the partnership.

Recommended Follow-up Activities The Administration recommended to City Council that the Future School Sites Study report be endorsed as the Future School Sites Study Model (the Model) for the provision of school sites in future communities. Some follow-up activities were outlined in the Planning and Development Department report to Council. These included working out details for a key component, the School /CKC Needs Assessment.

Also amongst other items, it was proposed that the Department develop a process for the application of the Model to the existing portion of the City and that the Department also consider any report and recommendations from Alberta Infrastructure's Minister's Symposium on Schools' that were expected later in 2003.

Summary The Model is considered to be a significant step in the City Administration's responsibilities for school site land use planning.

Ongoing activities by FSSS Working Committee members continue and add value to the efforts to improve delivery of service.

The Model will act as a flexible framework for the provision of school sites in future communities, serving as a useful tool articulating, to the benefit of all involved, a strategy for development of schools / CKCs. The Model does not force partnerships, but rather, creates a heightened awareness of such opportunities along with an environment within which CKCs can occur.

Finally, the Model is viewed as a positive step for all participants in efforts to provide school sites at an optimum location and in a timely manner that best meets the changing needs of the community. In so doing, the role of the school site as a community focal point will be enhanced.

The following page presents an overview of this project.

vi

o

nto

oocoao

coo

o

oco

oo

o

nao

aoo

ooo

o

ooo

e

a

na.o

o

o

o

c

ooc

o oanacemanac

oo

o

o

a~ooon

o

D

TWO PAR? MODIEL VI$O©N°

V $D©N

00 0i

. ")oint Use" off Schoot

°

a2.

One: Couood Pnowledae

unit "Commn Campus" (CKC) Focus

0

3. Shift from 0

° to

~Neighbourhood

Community Level Schoog Sites

o0

F Two: Land Use Part Mlanning Tools./ Guidelfnes

0

o ci0 o 0 13

0

0i 0 0 0

on

o

I

2.

0oCo

M@ Gqoe&i

DD 0

o0 0

0

0

mc M@di

.

.

0

0

EDMONTON FUTURE SCHOOL SITES STUDY BACKGROUND REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................

1.1 1.2 1.3

1

B ackgroun d .........................................................................................................................................

1 Approach to Developing a Strategy ..................................................................................................

2 The Future School Sites Study Background Report: How to Use It? ................................................ 4

2.0 DEVELOPING A VISION ....................................................................................................

5

2.1 2.2 2.3

5 6 8

The Future School Sites Study Vision ..............................................................................................

CKC Vision Opportunities.................................................................................................................

CKC V ision C hallenges .....................................................................................................................

3.0 DEVELOPING A FUTURE SCHOOL SITES STRATEGY............................................9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

9 G eneral Research ...............................................................................................................................

17 E dmonton Research .........................................................................................................................

20 Summary of General Findings ........................................................................................................

Achieving the Vision: Model for School / CKC Sites.................................................................... 23

4.0 IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY ..............................................................................

4.1 4.2 4.3

27

27 C K C Partnerships ..............................................................................................................................

C ommunity C onsultation ..................................................................................................................

29 Land Use Planning and Design Considerations................................................................................ 31

5.0 CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND DIRECTION ....................................................

41

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................

43

KEY DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................

47

APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................

49

List of Illustrations Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 -

Three Phase Future School Sites Study Process Factors Influencing School Site Decision-making Edmonton School-age Population Trends and Projections (1979-2025) George P. Nicholson Elementary School Conceptual Plan Showing School Site Distribution Using CKC Concept Centrally located and linked to neighbourhoods Use of public space as a connector to community Singapore Community Centre Design for efficiency "Single Structure Style" CKC Site Plan "Campus Style" CKC Site Plan

ix

EDMONTON FUTURE SCHOOL SITES STUDY BACKGROUND REPORT 1.0

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

In recent years, there has been increasing concern over the provision of school sites in newly developing areas of the city. Questions surfaced about issues such as the effectiveness / efficiency of the land use planning / design process, the lack of timely delivery of developed school sites to residents and an increased number of longstanding vacant school sites.

Approximately fifty vacant assembled school sites currently exist and approximately one hundred designated school sites exist and have yet to be developed in approved plan areas' (see Appendix la and lb). Some eighteen per cent of the districts2 elementary students live in neighbourhoods without a local elementary school and students living in the newer areas are currently transported by bus or private vehicles to schools in more established areas.

This concern led to the City Council direction that the Administration (Planning and Development Department) undertake a study of the issue. The Future School Sites Study (FSSS) focus was on the provision of school sites in communities of the future. Terms of Reference were prepared 3 and the FSSS was initiated in mid-2001.

The City of Edmonton's 2003-2004 Corporate Business Plan, a strategic document outlining the approach to implementing Plan Edmonton during the period 2003-2005, was approved by Council in June 2002. The FSSS has been identified as one of the strategies being used to attain the corporate goal for "a well-planned urban environment" 4.

01 Source: Edmonton Community Services Department (Parkland Services Branch), May 2002 2 Edmonton Public Schools 10 Year Facility Plan 2002-2012.

3Approved by Council, July 4, 2000 4 2003-2005 Corporate Business Plan.

1.2 Approach to Developing a Strategy The FSSS has been prepared in recognition that there are financial obstacles impeding efforts to acquire and to develop a system of schools within future communities. The FSSS also acknowledges the fact that existing policies, procedures and guidelines will continue to serve as a necessary foundation for the strategy that in turn, supports an assessment of priorities, which have been defined in Plan Edmonton and other civic policy documents.

The FSSS has been prepared as part of a collaborative effort among civic departments and other interests that will be affected by this initiative. In recognition of the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is most suited to addressing the issues at hand, the Edmonton Planning and Development Department assembled a team of professionals having a direct involvement in the business of school site planning in communities.

This Future School Sites Study Working

Committee [hereafter referred to as the Committee], which met on a regular basis through the duration of the study process, comprised of representatives from the: * * * * *

Alberta government (Alberta Municipal Affairs, Alberta Infrastructure), Joint Use Agreement partners (Edmonton Public Schools, Edmonton Catholic Schools, the Edmonton Community Services Department), Urban Development Institute, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues and City of Edmonton departments (Transportation and Streets, Asset Management and Public Works, Planning and Development).

As illustrated by Figure 1, three phases apply to the process used to complete the FSSS: Figure 1: Three Phase Future School Sites Study Process

200

Phase One

KCommunity Campus"

0

hase Two.

Strategy

ViinDevelopment

2

7

Phase Tthee.

Final Product toi City Council

Each phase is discussed as follows: Phase One - Develop a Vision:

Based on the Council-approved Terms of Reference, the Committee initiated Phase One. In December 2001, completion of Phase One resulted in production of a series of background reports and the Visioning Workshop Session Report (see Appendix 2).

The latter report summarizes the results of the two visioning workshop sessions facilitated by Western Management Consultants Ltd. These sessions, which involved thirty preselected key stakeholders 5 , resulted in an agreement on a vision or statement of a preferred future for schools as integral components of well-planned future communities. The vision, among other things, proposes an enhanced role for school sites to become multi-use Community Knowledge Campuses to serve learners of all ages, along with a range of complementary uses. City Council's Executive Committee received a Planning and Development Department progress report, including the FSSS Visioning Report, as information in May 2002.

Phase Two - Phase 2 - Develop a Strateyv: During Phase 2, the Committee developed then further refined the CKC Model, and determined the feasibility potential for its implementation. Emphasizing such key topics (see Figure 1) as legislation/regulations, community consultation/timing, land use design and land ownership, the Committee developed a strategy to implement the preferred vision in order to develop a model or template for providing future school sites in future communities while fostering a sense of community.

5Note: In addition to the FSSS team of professionals representing previously-mentioned agencies, other participating stakeholders organizations included the Alberta Association, Canadian Institute of Planners, Alberta Association of Architects, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists, Edmonton Sports Council, Edmonton Public Schools Student-Parent Council and the Edmonton Police Service. The Conseil Scolaire-Nord became involved later in the process during Phase Two.

3

Phase Three - Final Product for Council: The Edmonton Planning and Development Department's recommendation that City Council approve the Future School Sites Study and instruct the Administration to implement its findings as outlined in the FutureSchool Sites Study Summary Report 6.

1.3 The Future School Sites Study Background Report: How to Use It? The FSSS Background Report has been prepared with the intent to present information in much the same manner found in the Council-approved FSSS Summary Report. However, given that this background document is aimed at practitioners and others with a direct interest in the planning and development of school sites, it provides a more enhanced level of discussion. It summarizes the research that was undertaken and the conclusions that were drawn by the Committee over the process of preparing this strategy or Model for future school development in Edmonton. It also discusses the manner in which the Model should be implemented in order to attain the CKC Vision.

More specifically, Chapter 2.0 is an overview of the process used to develop the CKC Vision. It identifies a range of benefits and challenges associated with the attainment of the CKC Vision. Chapter 3.0 offers a more substantial discussion of factors that influence school development, both from a generic and a local standpoint. It also discusses the three key conclusions orfindings that guided the Committee in the development of the Model. The chapter concludes with a two-page summation of the Model and its key components.

Lastly, Chapter 4.0 provides some discussion of three pillars that are viewed as being critical to the successful application of the Model. It lays out a framework for follow-up activities (e.g., Needs Assessment Guidelines) and provides a wealth of information pertaining to the location and design of such a multi-use facility. Information provided is in the form of examples, conceptual illustrations and references to additional sources of knowledge.

6 Note: Copies of the July 2, 2003 Council-approved FSSS Summary Report have been distributed to Planning Services staff

and are also available for wide distribution. The Executive Summary of this background document presents a somewhat abbreviated version of the FSSS Summary Report.

4

2.0

DEVELOPING A VISION

In November-December 2001,

two Visioning Workshops, involving thirty key

stakeholders, resulted in an agreement on a statement of a preferred future for schools as integral components of well-planned future communities. This statement, or Vision, proposed an enhanced role for school sites to become multi-use Community Knowledge Campuses to serve learners of all ages, along with a range of complementary uses.

2.1 The Future School Sites Study Vision

S Workshop participants adopted the following Vision Statement.7 The School sites in communities of the future will be centrally located, multi-use community knowledge campuses that serve students and learners of all ages and house a range of complementary recreational, community and public services. They will be beacons at the heart of the community that are relevant, adaptive, flexible and accessible.

To achieve this Vision:

>

Legislative and regulatory regimes that support sound planning decisions and processes will be in place (MGA, Alberta Infrastructure, School Act, Joint Use Agreement,flexible zoning, planningprocesses, etc.).

>

The services/functions to be provided at the site will be determined in consultation with key community stakeholders (needs assessment) and form the basisfor the timely planningand development of the site.

>

The land uses and facilities will be flexible and designed to transcend ageing populations in the community and accommodate changes.

>

The sites will be adequately sized to accommodate proposed multiple uses, appropriately aligned with the transportation network to ensure ease of access, and have adequateparking.

>

The sites will be primarily publicly owned*. However, co-locating private businesses, private/ public partnerships and/or multi-agency service delivery ventures will be encouraged where these are consistent with establishedplanning principles and are of mutual benefit**.

Notes:

* "Publicly owned" does not necessarily mean municipal reserve. * While there was not unanimous agreement on the issue of private versus public ownership of school sites, the majority of the participants favoured publicly owned sites as the primary operating framework. There was recognition that the private sector ownership option in some cases may be viable or preferable and should be considered on a case by case

basis.

7Appendix 2, Visioning Workshop Session Report contains a complete record of the Visioning Workshop proceedings.

5

2.2 CKC Vision Opportunities Implementing Civic Policies a) Plan Edmonton: Plan Edmonton, the City's Municipal Development Plan (Bylaw No. 11777, as Amended 8), is the most significant piece of civic legislation. This long-range municipal development plan document identifies five key areas 9 of municipal responsibility. Of the eight priorities10 and accompanying strategies that have been identified in support of, and consistent with, the City's responsibility for Planned Growth, the FSSS or CKC Vision is supportive of the following: * Land Development Philosophy * Utilization of Existing Infrastructure * Managing Suburban Growth b) Integrated Services Strategy: Approved by City Council in July 2000, Towards 2010 A New Perspective: An IntegratedService Strategy is the first long-term plan for the Community Services Department (CSD). The cornerstones of this strategy are the six Service Themes that are built, amongst other things, on community values and priorities. For each of these themes", broad targets and success indicators have been established. Of these, the CKC Vision is most strongly supportive of the Edmonton CSD's Community Places theme that promotes a concept of developing community hubs in an effort to turn communities into vibrant urban villages.

c) Implementation of Plans: Plans are prepared and implemented through the use of Areas Structure Plans (ASPs) / Servicing Concept Design Briefs (SCDBs) at a macro level and by Neighbourhood Structure

8 Municipal Development Plan approved by City Council in August 1998.

9 Areas of responsibility include... Planned Growth; Economic Development; Services to People; Infrastructure Development

and Maintenance; Leadership and Regional Co-operation and Inter-municipal Planning.

10Land Development Philosophy, Downtown Development, Utilization of Existing Infrastructure, Economic Activity Centres Within the City, Reinvestment in Mature Neighbourhoods, Preservation and Enhancement of the Natural Environment and Open Spaces, Managing Suburban Growth and Population Growth.

1 Service Themes include ... Citizen's First, Community Building, Focussed Efforts, Urban Wellness, Ribbons of Green and Blue and Community Places.

6

Plans (NSPs) at the neighbourhood/community level. Such plans identify broad land uses and design. Terms of Reference for preparation of such plans are in place.

The Zoning Bylaw is the tool kit that implements these plans. The US (Urban Services) Zone is primarily for regulating school development while the AP (Public Parks) Zone is for regulating adjacent park land and development. The Direct Control (DC) Zone exists for unique circumstances where conventional zoning will not work. The subdivision process exists for the creation of titled land, and the designation of Municipal and School Reserve [a land area of up to 10 per cent] is provided for in the Alberta Municipal Government Act. A remedy also exists for the discharge of Reserve designation where a proposal may be in conflict with the Municipal Government Act (MGA), or where lands may be declared surplus and not needed for school/park purposes. For further information, see Sub-section 3.1 - Provincial Legislation, in this report.

A Joint Use Agreement (JUA) also exists among the City and School Boards to promote the orderly planning and operation of school/park sites. This mechanism is relatively flexible and can be amended from time-to-time, as may be required 2 .

Furthermore, a variety of guidelines exist to further enhance development of school sites and neighbourhoods in general. Guideline documents of note are discussed further in this report in Sub-section 4.3 - Land Use Planning and Design Considerations.

Other Potential Benefits Additional benefits from the Community Knowledge Campus concept include: * Potentialto serve as a gatheringplace or hub with enhanced access to educational and other services serving a more diverse population over a longer time-frame, reducing a need to go elsewhere; * Potentialeconomies ofscale -- savings in capital (e.g., construction) and operating costs (e.g., staffing) through the sharing of facilities (e.g., libraries, cafeterias, common areas, administration, parking, playfields & other infrastructure); * Potentialfor superiorvisual andfunctionalfacility design that welcomes the community in a manner that will have a positive impact on students, teachers and the surrounding neighbourhoods;

12

The current Joint Use Agreement expires in April 2006.

7

*

Potentialto make more efficient structuraluse of space and energy (e.g., multi-floor design);

*

Potentialto promote community goals as opposed to individualagency goals;

*

Potentialto plan and create a more comprehensive communityfocal point that enhances the longterm vitality, viability, stability, attractiveness and overall marketability of adjacent neighbourhoods; Potentialforacquisitionoffewer school sites in future communities and the negative scenarios associated with their future disposal if deemed to be surplus;

* *

Potentialforbetter stewardship of land and other resources;

*

Potentialto embrace lifelong learningthrough compatible partnerships that will enhance efficient use of infrastructure, and

*

Potentialto better meet community learning needs in a timely manner, with a more rigorous assessment of future community requirements.

2.3 CKC Vision Challenges Development of the CKC concept is not without challenges, some of which include:

*

Findingthe rightpartnerrelationshipsthat not only produce benefits for the partners involved, but also sustains the changing needs of the areas that are being served;

*

Designingadjacent neighbourhoodsto enhance the vitality, viability and accessibility of the CKC concept, given that some school facilities may be located slightly further away from homes than what has traditionally occurred previously in some neighbourhoods;

*

Designinga CKCfacility that will maintain the identity of each partner while serving as an identifiable focal point for the adjacent communities;

*

Determining different ways of administeringa multi-use facility (e.g., budgeting, scheduling, liability, leasing, etc.) and dealing with challenges associated with partnerships;

*

Designingfunding mechanisms that recognize and address the complexities associated with CKC partnership, and

*

Designing linkages that promote a walking environment.

8

3.0

DEVELOPING A FUTURE SCHOOL SITES STRATEGY

Completion of Phase One in the FSSS process resulted in production of the Visioning Workshop Report. This report with its Vision, or preferred future enhanced role for school sites becoming multi-use Community Knowledge Campuses, established a foundation from which the Committee could develop a strategy.

To complete Phase Two, the Committee further examined the feasibility of the Community Knowledge Campus (CKC) concept and developed a strategy / model for its implementation.

3.1 General Research Information initially gathered in Phase One, resulted in a series of "Background Reports" which were distributed

3 to

the participants during the visioning workshop sessions.

The Committee initiated Phase Two by completing some additional research tasks that were considered critical to achievement of the CKC Vision. An assortment of research mechanisms were applied, ranging from an e-survey of Canadian municipalities, to the formation of FSSS Committee sub-groups, each focussing on a variety of specific key topics such as legislation/regulations, community consultation/timing, land use design and land ownership, amongst other topics (e.g., School-age Population Trends and Projections). Research also took into consideration benefits and challenges associated with successful implementation of the CKC Vision.

Newspapers, periodicals and other sources of information were monitored and websearches were conducted regularly in an effort to keep abreast as to what was happening with respect to planning for future school site development (see References).

13Reports (7) are available for viewing at the Edmonton Planning and Development Department.

9

General findings from this research are discussed as follows in this sub-section (3.1) while research conducted more exclusively in an Edmonton context is discussed in Sub-section 3.2. To enhance the discussion, references used from this research are interspersed throughout the chapter. Overall, a variety of factors that influence school site decision-making were examined (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Factors Influencing School Site Decision-making Societal Trends * * * *

Demographics /Aging society / Fertility rates Technology (e.g. transportation and communications) Population growth and distribution Other trends impacting future schools and neighbourhood design

TS

Municipal Land Use Planning and

Government Legislation and Policy

CommunityDevelopment

* Provincial funding and policy * * * * *

* Municipal Development Plan policies respecting urban growth Plan/Neighbourhood Structure Plan policies * Area'Structure and Terms of Reference

Timely delivery Municipal Government Act (Municipal Reserve, etc.)

School Act Joint Use Agreement School Board Policies (open boundaries, etc.)

* Neighbourhood Design Guidelines * Zoning Bylaw * New Area Structure Plans / Servicing Concept Design Briefs (e.g. Heritage Valley, etc.) * Influences / initiatives such as intensification, smart growth, new urbanism, sustainable urban growth, staging options, etc. * "Neighbourhood unit (Isschool a focal point?) • Schoollocation / neighbourhood design (interior, peripheral, number of schools per plan; school /park link, population shared; generation figures, etc.)

Future Innoations Possibilities /Unknowns * Private-public partnerships Innovative financing / ownership schemes *Mixed use * Flexible uses / life cycle / reuse * Changing education philosophies * Provincial School Symposium

Survey of Canadian Municipalities

In December 2001, the Planning and Development Department prepared an e-survey (see Appendix 3) that was distributed to twenty Canadian municipalities. The survey resulted in

findings pertaining to such school-oriented topics as current practices, future trends, neighbourhood concept/design and multiple use considerations 14

Note: The e-survey resulted in an un-published Planning and Development Department report entitled, Report on Survey of Municipalities.

14

10

Practices for acquiring school sites were fairly consistent throughout Canada. Although some sites were purchased out-right from the land developer by local school boards, the school sites were largely established in future communities and followed a joint-use philosophy, whereby parks and school were situated adjacent to each other, often at a central location within a conceptual plan.

Survey responses indicated that trends in school development are largely a function of demographics. All Canadian municipalities seem to be experiencing an aging population that coincides with a reduction in family size. As a result, decreasing enrolment is placing considerable pressure on school districts to find ways to attract a wider clientele. Consequently,

school districts have been consolidated and the expanded catchment areas often result in school closures and subsequent school-site re-use issues. Other schools, including increasing competition from private schools, are seeking ways to offer unique or specialized services (e.g., emphasis on music, arts, and evening adult education).

At the same time, reduction in funding, coinciding with concerns about increasing taxes are placing pressures on schools to find ways to reduce expenditures. This has led to some questioning issues such as the cost-effectiveness of large schoolyards and considering a need for partnerships.

Schools are primarily considered to be a focal point of a community, but not necessarily the focal point. In most jurisdictions, additional uses are being considered a part of the equation particularly those that have a recreation and community service orientation. Such uses primarily consist of community centres, arenas, libraries, day-care centres and perhaps medical and other institutional uses. Challenges associated with implementation continue, but with a wide variety in enabling legislation, school board powers, and cultures across the county, one must be cautionary in making direct comparisons.

11

Provincial Legislation Legislative direction for Edmonton's Future School Sites Study has been provided within the policy framework established in the following provincial-level policy documents: a) Municipal Government Act: The Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA) contains enabling legislation within which municipalities operate governing the use of Reserve land. Specifically, Part 16, Division 8 addresses uses related to Reserve lands including land dedication. The MGA provides dedication to a maximum of 10 per cent of land area upon subdivision for municipal and school reserve 15 .

The MGA also provides a mechanism for money in place of reserve land, deferment of reserve and the like. Also, Division 9 Use and Disposal of Reserve Land has direct application. In particular, Section 671(2) restricts the use of reserve lands for purposes of a public park, a public recreationarea, a school, or to separate areas of land that are usedfor different purposes (e.g., buffer). In addition, the MGA governs the disposal of reserve lands and the City itself has a policy regarding the Surplusing of Reserve Lands. b) School Act: The Alberta School Act contains legislation pertaining to the provincial responsibilities for the provision of public education throughout the province. It has more to do with curriculum and public education issues and less impact on matters relating to siting of schools in communities.

0 0 S 15Note: This amount is set at 10 per cent in the City's Municipal Development Plan. Relevant sections of the MGA are presented in Appendix 6.

12

Other Influencing Factors The following topics also influence the provision of future schools facilities. a) Provincial Government Perspectives: Two provincial departments directly involved with the establishment of school infrastructure and promotion of education programs are Alberta Infrastructure and Alberta Learning.

Minister's Symposium on Schools - "Learning Facilities for Tomorrow's Communities" In December 2001, Alberta's Minister of Infrastructure hosted Learning Facilitiesfor Tomorrows Communities, a two-day symposium with a mandate to develop fresh ideas and create new solutions. The symposium revolved around three themes: alternative procurement opportunities, innovative approaches to design and construction, and evolving functionality of school facilities. Outstanding issues, identified for each theme, were explored in round table

discussion groups. Five recommendations emerged from the symposium which, when implemented, will complement and support Goal 2 of Alberta Infrastructure's Business Plan 2002-2005 -- Work with Partnersto Provide Quality BuildingInfrastructure.

In 2002, Alberta

Infrastructure

established five

sub-committees

to study the

16 recommendations from the symposium as per the following respective topics

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Alternative Procurement Opportunities (P3s); Sustainable School Buildings; Planning and Design Process; Functionality and Utilization; and Use of School Reserves.

Sub-committee work with respect to these topics resulted in a final report to the Minister of Infrastructure in January 2004. The report proposed to examine possible revisions to provincial legislation, most notably that of the Municipal Government Act regarding the use of Municipal Reserve. More details about this initiative can be found in the Alberta Infrastructure websitel177

0 16 Note: 17 see

0 0

0

The City of Edmonton had some representation on these committees. http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=695

13

Alberta's Commission of Learning - "Preparing for the Future" Alberta Learning completed a province-wide survey 18 whereby the concept of providing for lifelong learningis viewed as the future direction that the Province wishes to support. More recently, they initiated through Alberta's Commission of Learning, Preparing for the Future, the first in-depth review of Alberta's education system, from kindergarten to grade 12, to be conducted since 1972. This report was completed in late 2003, providing recommendations and advice to the Minster of Learning in the following six broad topic areas: * * * * * *

Ensuring excellence in the classroom; Meeting the needs of a changing student population; Facilitating smooth transitions into and through the system; Focusing on results, clarifying roles and responsibilities and governance; Providing responsive and relevant curriculum; and Building a sustainable and high quality system for the future.

Additional details about this initiative may be found the Commission's website 9 . b) Demographic Change: The overall aging of society in Edmonton and elsewhere in Canada has also affected the demand for additional community services. For example, municipalities have indicated an increasing demand for more passive parkland in neighbourhoods (e.g., maintain natural ecosystems, develop walking trails) rather than for the more traditional sportfields. A more detailed discussion of Edmonton demographic school-age trends is presented in Sub-section 3.2. c) Municipal Financing Partnerships:

With property taxes being the most significant source of revenue, municipalities across Canada have been lobbying senior levels of government in an effort to obtain additional funds for badly needed financing of infrastructure development. They are looking for new ways to do business, whether encouraging more efficient ways of providing civic services or through establishing unique financial partnerships. The City of Edmonton for example, has embarked on

18 Alberta

Learning. MLA Committee on Lifelong Learning: What We Heard.

19http://www.learningcommission.gov.ab.ca/commission.asp?LID=76

14

a Smart Choices initiative, a strategy identified in the City of Edmonton Corporate Business Plan, as being used to attain the corporate goal for a well-planned urban environment.

Jurisdictions elsewhere have considered other means to resolve such fiscal problems. In Los Angeles, for instance, budgetary and land shortages have resulted in unusual designs such as three and four floor schools with subterranean parking and tennis courts atop garages 220. In Vaughan, Ontario, the Vellore Village Joint Complex combines a Catholic High School and a community centre in an effort to share each other's facilities and reduce long-term operational costs. Here, students use the pool and community centre tennis courts and once school is out, the facility is opened up to allow the public to use the gym or double-height cafeteria as a meeting hall 2 1.

Similarly in Alberta, the City of Grande Prairie entered into a partnership with the Catholic and public school boards and the Province to develop a comprehensive community centre that will integrate educational and recreational opportunities with community facilities, technology, arts and culture to create a centre for lifelong learning. This unique project with shared construction and facility management is being developed in an effort to maximize cost savings in both capital and operating dollars 22 . Similar partnership arrangements in Alberta, either existing or proposed, are found in Calgary, Sylvan Lake, Strathcona County and Red Deer (see Appendix 4).

The Government

of Alberta as such, views partnership arrangement

or P3s

(public/private or public-public partnerships), as being one possible way to finance needed capital projects across the province. Public-private partnerships are financed or funded in part by the private sector whereas public-public partnerships are funded by various levels of government (federal, provincial or municipal) and often involve the voluntary sector like foundations or charitable *23

organizations 23.

20

McKee, B. Quick, Build Us a SchooL

S21 Rochon, Lisa. Schools struggleto make the grade.

22see www.city.grande-prairie.ab.ca/ckc/ckc_vision.htm

23 see http://www.infras.gov.ab.ca/BusComNewslnfras/production/p3nrbkgrder.htm

15

Urban School Reform in the United States Smaller Schools: There is a movement in the United States that promotes the development of smaller 24 schools. Research conducted in 2000 by Chicago Public Schools found that in smaller schools

* * * *

Student performance and test scores improved; Violence occurred less frequently; Conditions were more conducive for students to learn and for teachers to develop professionally; and Parents and community members were more satisfied with the school.

In North Carolina it was found that implementation of this concept is challenged by the 25 fact that both initial and life cycle costs are considerably higher for typical small schools than

for larger schools serving an equivalent number of students. Consequently, several approaches to overcoming this dilemma include: *

*

Partnering with other agencies or groups to contribute to or share in the additional costs through the use ofjoint use agreements and increasing the community use of schools to encourage a greater desire to fund the facilities; and to Find innovative ways to maximize the use of all spaces so that less building area is required.

Such methods include increased use of multi-purpose classrooms, double-shift scheduling and greater use of off-site facilities.

Schools as Community Focal Points: In 1998, the U.S. Department of Education convened a group of architects, planners, school board members, teachers and representatives from federal agencies that endorsed the idea that schools serve as centres of community or community learning centres. This approach brings the community more into the school and the school into the community by expanding the usage of and access to the school through initiatives such as after-school, evening and weekend

24

Note:

In Nathan and Foley's article, Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools, these are defined as an elementary school

with fewer than 350 students and a high school with fewer than 400 students. In comparison, Edmonton's McKemrnan Elementary-Junior High in 2002 has a total enrollment of 630 students ... 269 at the junior high level and 361at the elementary level.

25 Note: In North Carolina's State Board of Education report entitled Making Current Trends in School Design Feasible, effective small school sizes are defined as elementary (3-400 students), middle (3-600 students) and high school (4-800 students).

16

programs 26 . Afterwards, the state of New Jersey launched the largest, most comprehensive school construction program in the United States. This $12 billion public works program is part of a key strategy designed to achieve the goals of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Such goals include location and construction of new facilities to serve as focal points for existing and new development and the integration of school facilities planning with neighbourhood and community-wide planning and development.

3.2 Edmonton Research a) Student Demographic Changes: Using both the Canadian census and local civic forecasts, trends and projections were examined with respect to Edmonton's school-age population.

Between 1979 and 2001, the absolute number of potential elementary-junior high students increased from a low of 67,588 [14% of total 1979 population] to the 2001 high of

84,635 [13% of total population]. In absolute figures, this cohort is expected to decline to about 78,000 persons by 2010, yet increase again to about 84,314 persons by 2025. It is anticipated that this increase is, largely the result of the baby-boomer generation's grandchildren, entering the elementary-junior high school level in numbers similar to those that are evident today.

Between 1979 and 2001, the number of potential high school-age students ranged from a 1979 high of 46,886 [10% of total population] to a low of 38,698 [6% of total population] in 1991. This is indicative of the fact that last members of the baby-boomer generation were finally leaving high school. Although the boomer generation had many of their children during the 1980s, these offspring, for the most part, were only entering the elementary-junior high school level in the 1990s. In absolute terms, the high school cohort will remain at the current level of about 46,000 persons before decreasing slightly to an approximate 42-44,000 range in 2015.

These figures are expected to remain much the same for the balance of the forecast period, which is indicative of the fact that many of the baby-boomer generation's grandchildren haven't yet reached the high school level. Education providers and other related stakeholders/partners

26 see

www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings0 1/SHOSHKES/shoshkes.htm

17

continue to closely monitor population and demographic statistics and forecasts in order to provide services when needed. Figure 3 illustrates past and projected school-age demographic influences in the City of Edmonton.

Figure 3: Edmonton School-age Population Trends and Projections (1979-2025) 05-14 years (Elementary-Junior High) 015-19 years (High School)

90000

84615

84635

...

.

80000 67588

mS

70218

67792

84314

0720

80171

78015

80399

8

70000 6Dooo -

-

50000

66

44899

.

8465

.-.

75

38698

08

45D74

41735

493

39:'q415.

40000 -30OO -

-

20000

10000

0 1979

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2005 (Projected)

2010

2015

2020

2025

(Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected)

Source: 1979-2001 (Canada Census), 2005-2025 (Projections prepared by Edmonton Planning and Development, Corporate Planning & Policy Section)

b) Student Distribution: According to the Edmonton Public Schools 10-Year Facility Plan 2002-2012, most of the projected population growth is expected to occur in suburban areas of the city. Despite this forecast, the large number of communities under development have resulted in slower build-out rates within individual neighbourhoods. This has been due in part to densities and the overall population being significantly lower than was expected in the initial neighbourhood plans. In Terwilligar Heights for example, neighbourhoods were planned by developers at densities around 22 units per hectare, yet the reality is that these neighbourhoods are only yielding of around 12 units per hectare, thus resulting in decreases in peak student generation.

18 18

0 018 0 0

0

In an effort to mitigate this situation, school districts are beginning to create larger geographic attendance areas made up of more than one city neighbourhood (e.g., Heritage Valley SCDB vs Lewis Farms ASP), recognizing that one public elementary may be sufficient to serve more than one neighbourhood (see Appendix 5). This "fine tuning" is an ongoing exercise given the consistently changing student demographics. c) Community Infrastructure Gap: Schools are not the only community facilities that are not being built in a timely fashion.

According to Herzog (2002, November 28), in a Real Estate Weekly article, residents of most of these partially built neighbourhoods - some nearly 25 years old - are living without proposed libraries,police stations, playgrounds and upgraded roads. In a follow-up article, Herzog (2002, December 5) indicates that, studies aroundNorth America show that, as people age, they increasingly want to live in communities that are interconnected,with shops, public transit and

accessible services. The article goes on to emphasize that isolated neighbourhoodsfurtherfrom the heartof the city, devoid of amenities, could well become the slums of the 21st century.

Edmonton's Planning and Development Department has, for many years, been concerned about such scenarios and their potential implications.

In 1993, City Council initiated the

Strategy for Infrastructure in Edmonton project, which set in motion a variety of reports and studies associated with infrastructure and the costs and benefits of various growth scenarios. In 2001, a report entitled Partially Built Neighbourhoods and its supplement report, More On Partially Built Neighbourhoods, was completed. These reports reviewed the status of development over a ten year period in forty-three suburban neighbourhoods using both current and projected statistics for three different indicators: population, single family housing lot registrations and multiple family housing.

19

In an effort to provide recreation facilities, partnerships in some communities adjacent to Edmonton have resulted in the construction of multi-purpose recreation complexes 27 Accordingly, this new generation of one-stop recreation centres, as such have become important community gatheringplaces of the early 21 st century (Herzog, December 2002). d) Local Schools in Partnership: d) Local in Partnership: Schools

Figure 4: George P. Nicholson Elementary School

While there have been some recent proposals, the school in partnership with other uses concept is relatively new to the Edmonton scene. Unlike larger projects being implemented in Alberta, the recently opened George P. Nicholson Elementary School in the Twin Brooks neighbourhood provides a local example (see Figure 4). The 5,794 square metre, 350 student elementary . school, includes a gymnasium, a library, a YMCA daycare and Capital Health services clinic28

Details concerning the implementation of this type of partnership in Alberta are summarized on the School Facility Partnerships in Alberta chart (see Appendix 4).

3.3 Summary of General Findings After extensive research and discussion on topics related to the provision of school sites,

it was generally concluded that the situation in Edmonton is not that unique. Joint use arrangements are frequently applied both in Edmonton as well as elsewhere in Canada and the United States, with respect to the development of schools in conjunction with parks.

Additionally, the concept of schools serving in an expanded capacity as community focal points, an idea that has been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education and being implemented,

27Millenium Place in Strathcona County and the TransAlta Tri Leisure Centre serving Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Parkland

County.

28Lord, Cathy. Twin Brooks school opens amid rumble ofbackhoes.

20

notably by the state of New Jersey, is not unlike the CKC concept endorsed during the FSSS Visioning Workshop. What differs considerably is the political, financial and cultural framework in which various jurisdictions operate. Consequently, the FSSS Working Committee concluded that solutions in this regard are best determined and served from within a local context.

A general consensus was reached amongst the wide group of stakeholders on the

Committee that the findings can be consolidated into the following three general areas: SThe concept of 'Joint Use' of school and park sites is good.

The shareddevelopment and use ofschool sites in conjunction with abuttingpark sites reinforces strong bonds between schools and communities. Joint use is based upon positive principles of shareduse, co-operativeplanning,shared costs, and efficiency / effectiveness. The dedication of Reserve landfor public purposes ofproviding communities with landfor parks, recreation,and schools through the Municipal GovernmentAct (MGA) was confirmed as a legitimatepublic action now and into the future; also confirmed was the use of the joint use agreement' (JUA) mechanism, a frameworkfor the equitable allocationof Reserve lands.

Commitment exists among agreementpartnersto make improvements in JUA implementation, within both the current [expiringin 2005] andfuture agreements.

Potentialexists for additionalfutureJUA partners.

The 'Community Knowledge Campus' (CKC) concept is desirableas a means of enhancing a community focal point.

The school site is seen to be a significantfocal pointfor a community and the CKC concept is seen as a positive enhancement to the traditionalway of developing schools.

There is merit in providinga limited range of educationalrelatedpartnership opportunitieswithin school sites on MunicipalReserve lands. Considerationalso should be given to a wider range of compatible community service partners on nearby nonMunicipal Reserve lands, whether underprivate or public ownership. The opportunityfor partnershipson school sites allows access to a wider range of community services and can take advantage of efficiencies associated with economies of scale and better use of existing physical infrastructurewhile meeting changing needs. It allows for flexibility and creativity in designing a CKC using a variety of land interests (reserve,public, private) depending upon the needs of the proponents and community. This enhanced opportunityalso recognises demographicrealities, the increasedemphasis on lifelong learningetc. This will create an environment that will encourage school sites to first provide core school services, and secondly a limited range of complementary uses that will enhance its role as a communityfocal point. l[Note: A CKC can be developed solely on Reserve land, or can locate on a combination of Reserve lands and private orpublic (non Reserve) lands; also, note that a school site can be developed with or without partnershipsas envisioned in the CKC model].

21

This enhanced opportunity through a CKCformat may contribute to an improved school projectperforma and lead to a more timely development as a site, better matching community needs. No changes to provincial or municipal legislation /policies are required to implement the CKC Concept [Note: There are clearly limitations in the MGA regardingpartnershipopportunities on Reserve lands.Alberta Infrastructuresponsored the Minister's Symposium on Schools and has reviewed, among other things, the Reserve issue andprovincial regulationsthereto - and any changes could directly affect partnershipoptions. The Symposium also reviewed Alternative Procurement Opportunities(P3s), School in the Community, Sustainable School Buildings and the Planning and Design Process. The final report was released in January 2004 and may be viewed on the following website ... www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=695 .

There will continue to be a shift to community level school sites serving clusters of neighbourhoods.

Over the years, neighbourhoodsin Edmonton have developed in a variety of design formats; however, most traditionalneighbourhoodshave included an 'elementary school site' near the centre. In recentyears, there has been a move away from the 'one elementary schoolper neighbourhood' model. Factorssuch as reduced student generation numbers, the "open boundary" policy allowingflexibility ofschool selection, disperseddevelopment patterns and slow build out under the projecteddensities and populationof new neighbourhoods,the reality of numerous vacant school sites in developing areas (approximately 50 vacant assembled school sites) all cumulatively have resulted in a shift to largerattendance areas being utilized by the Boards. It is expected that this trend will continue and will translateinto school sites being located in the centre of communities efficiently serving clusters of neighbourhoods).

This does not imply a loss of the neighbourhoodconcept, but rathera more effective placement ofschools in the context of neighbourhoods. This will also requirecareful design andplacement of the school / CKC site near the centre of communities and the provision of good access linkages to groupings of neighbourhoods,including adjacent communities already in existence.

The School Boards are currently reviewing their strategies / standards(both in existing andfuture planningareas)so as to improve the delivery of schoolfacilities on school sites when needed. Increased attention is given to projected land requirements to meet

school needs. For example, Edmonton Public Schools have recently undertaken reviews of new Plan areas, in efforts to justify or reduce planned school sites. A reduction, consolidationand redistributionin school sites is in processfor the Structure Plans of the Lake District,PilotSound and TerwillegarHeights.

22

• •• •

3.4 Achieving the Vision: Model for School/CKC Sites

•

• •

• • •

The FSSS Vision [also referred to as

the Vision or CKC Vision] in combination with these

Study Findings provided the foundation for development of a model for the provision of school sites in future communities. In developing the FSSS Model [also referred to as the Model or CKC Model], early indications, based on FSSS Working Committee discussions, was that to

• •

prescribe detailed solutions for a preferred future was not workable. The Committee felt that an

•

limits of

overly prescriptive approach as such would inhibit flexibility, particularly in recognition of the

municipal influence and the complexity of stakeholder relationships. Co-operation and clarity of • •

communication among key stakeholders is critical and increasingly so as pressures to consider lifelong learning and partnership opportunities increase.

The CKC Model developed by the Committee is intended for use by all parties in the

• •

business of school site planning and development. It will serve as a guide for planning the

O

placement of school sites in future communities. It is consistent with City plans, policies and

•

directives including Plan Edmonton

• • •

Community Services Department's Integrated Services Strategy.

•

and the community hubs concept described in the

No changes to provincial or

municipal legislation are required for its application.

The Model is comprised of two parts. Part One (see page 25) contains the Vision, which developed the CKC concept as a focal point of a community. The Conceptual Model considers

• • •

the Vision and Study Findings and distributes the future sites among three levels — neighbourhood, community and district. The neighbourhood level will generally have a park component and may not include a school. The community and district levels will have a school /

•

CKC and a joint park site. The important role played by Community Leagues will not be

• •

diminished.

• • • •

•• •• •

The scale and intensity of the school / CKC will be proportionate to the catchment area being served. The Model is intended to serve as a flexible guide and the eventual distribution will be largely determined by the School / CKC Needs Assessment identified in Part Two.

23

Part Two (see page 26) of the Model consists of Land Use Planning Process Requirements and Design Guidelines that are to be used by Plan proponents in developing plans.

A very important element is the School / CKC Needs Assessment, a proposed new information requirement in the planning process. The Needs Assessment will provide a clear scan of the environment of future school and lifelong learning needs along with potential CKC partnerships, thereby more effectively delivering educational and thus other potential services to area residents in a timely manner.

The needs assessment, as such, is a more rigorous and documented scan of future needs of residents. It will be a product of consultation with all stakeholders, primarily education providers, applicable communities and any potential appropriate CKC partners. The assessment will utilize current student generation numbers, provide projections/scenarios of expected facility timing, and identify issues related to demographics, neighbourhood life cycles, etc. Completion of this assessment will provide a clear framework for developing an overall plan by providing the necessary information required to develop a conceptual outline showing school site distribution at the neighbourhood, community and district levels.

Part Two also contains two groupings of Design Guidelines. Firstly, Off-Site Location Guidelines lists location criteria for providing school / CKC sites in new communities including items such as central location, accessibility and the like. Secondly, On-Site Design Guidelines provides some direction relating to the facilities/uses on the CKC site including such items as safety, shared parking, design innovation that will better enhance safe inter-action within the

community that it serves. Lastly, Land Use PlanningProcesses/Tools contain a list of relevant tools/legislation to consider/address in developing a Plan.

24

Rture

'ic

for the Provision of School / CKC Sites in Future Communities

lModel

Stud To assist in the implementation of the FSSS Vision, the Model consists of two parts:

S............Note:

Future School Sites Study ision

Part One - Conceptual Model- three levels ofschool/CKCsites (neighbourhood,community and district)

communities School sites in School the future will be sites in of the centrally located, multi-use "community knowledge campuses" (CKC) that serve students and learners of all ages and house a range of complementary recreational, community and public services. They will be "beacons" at the heart of the community that are relevant, adaptive, flexible and accessible.

Part Two - CKC Land Use PlanningProcess and Design Guidelines - guidelinesfor preparationofPlans

Source: Visioning Workshop, December 2001

PartOne - ConceptualModel This Model serves as a guidefor planning the placement of school sites infuture communities. It also provides a guidefor inclusion ofjoint use park sites and creates the opportunityfor additionalpotential school site partnership.The school/CKCwill be proportionatein scale/intensity to the area being served.

The Model is intendedto be aflexible guide that can be easily revisedto respondto changing needs working closely with Part Two, particularlythe required "School/CKC Needs Assessment". This Model can work with or without partnerships.

neighbourhood level

community level

district level

a. definition

a. definition

a. definition

Service delivery range is up to approximately5,000 persons within a single, contained neighbourhoodunit, within a NeighbourhoodStructure Plan.

Service delivery range is two or more neighbourhoods of 5-20,000 persons within a NeighbourhoodStructure Plan or NeighbourhoodArea StructurePlan.

The School/CKC will locate near

The School/CKC will generally not occur, except for unique situations (e.g. isolated or large neighbourhood).

Generally, there will be one park per neighbourhood.

partnership

c. potential partnership continuum

m

SCHOOL

UNRESTRICTED

PARTNERS

the centre of the community to serve clusters of adjacent neighbourhoods. It will include opportunities for a limited range

The School (all levels)/CKC will locate in the centre of the district or sector in a distinct campus style. It will include

of partnership uses as per MGA lipotential mits. It includes a joint use park

opportunities for a range of CKC partnerships and will

reserve partners on adjacent nonof CKC land.

CKC apartners, range wider with include It can of limitations on reserve land.

include district level parks.

site and can include awider range

PARTNER

TRADITIONAL

Service delivery range is two or more communities with apopulation range of20,000+ persons within an Area Structure Plan or a Servicing Concept Design Brief

c. potential partnership continuum

C. potential partnership continuum PARTNER

PARTNER

I

I

TRADITIONAL SCHOOL Note:

restrictions of the MGA. Other CKC CKC partners on Municipal Reserve land are limited to "'school/park/recreation" partnerships are encouraged, but must locate on non-reserve land (or require Municipal Reserve designation removal). under Provincial review].

Reserve prmovisions are currently [Municipal

UNRESTRICTED PARTNERS

TRADITIONAL SCHOOL

UNRESTRICTED PARTNERS

T he following are land use planning process requirements and design

p

On-Site Design Guidelines for

tow

. guidelines for use by plan proponents in providing school /CKC sites infuture communities.

1

School /CKC Sites and Facilities

Site size and configuration, including park component, shall designed with flexibility to accommodate a fiull range of potentialfuture needs; such as sharedparking, lifelong learning considerations evening hour operations, other unique needs, etc.; a Should provide safe and sufficient drop offlocations, offstreet parking and loading access/egress points; o Should encourage the sharing offacility infrastructure, in the CKC concept, amongst potential partners, in order to maximize efficiencies of land, resources and services; this could include shared facilities between education providers or other 'MGA compatible'partners; or involve a wider range ofpartners on adjacent non reserve lands; o Free-standing schools, or multi-use schools with CKC partners, shall strive to enhance a community focal point and strong sense ofplace; and contribute to a safe and healthy community which promotes fundamentals of smart choice'such as options, vitality, viability and access. They shall comply with CPTED principles and consider innovative design formats, including multi-level buildings to maximize land efficiency. palc ro 10' . Land Use Planning 'bo, o

NNbe

School / CKC Needs Assessment

NEE

SA

Needs Assessment "scan" is an examination offuture school needv, and any potential projected partnershipopportunities which provides aframework for the distribution ofschool / CKC sites

0ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT

within a new Plan area, at the neighbourhood (N), community (C) and district (D) levels (as per Part One ofthe Model). It will... be required with any structure plan submission (Plan Terms ofReference) and prepared by the proponent ofthe Plan in collaboration with stakeholders (municipality, education providers, any prospective school partners. landownersand residents,EFCL, known community interests); maximize awareness and opportunity for successfully meetingfuture community educational need, including linkages with existing adjacent communities; use current student generation numbers, undertake projections and scenarios of cycle; expectedfacility timing, issues related to demographics, neighborhood life enhance the timely delivery ofa school / CKC site in a manner that best matches

o

o o o

se PTo

community need and optimizes the efficient use ofland resources; o be updated at various planning stages to best meet

Processes / Tools

changing needs.

A, *0We0i o

S

CKC

2

Off-Site Location Guidelines for School School / / CKC CKC Sites Sites

V Should be located that it can easily serviced and o such Shuldbe sch hatit ocatd cn be b eaily ervcedandwith the community; of development the in early available Should be located central to a cluster or grouping ofneighborhoods, and where possible central to attendance (catchment) areas; Should be doublefronting where possible, along a transit route, and in proximity to other services; class offrontage (local. collector arterial) will depend upon the nature of the CKC, but preferably the frontageshould locate on collector mroadway; Should be highly accessible and provide sufficient and safe pedestrian /bicycle linkage throughout the neighborhood/ community and promote walkability; where possible, ensure connection to a comprehensive open space /pathway system.

o

a

o o

o

.............

0

i•

o

o

City - Municipal Development Plan, Structure Plans, Integrated Services Strategy; Zoning Bylaw, Urban Services Zone (US) provides sufficientflexibilityfor the /partners, andflexibility development ofschools and appropriate range of uses dvlpeto col n an naporaerneo ss/prnradlxblt also in builtform /design options, while the Direct Control (DC2) Zone may at times be desirable to ensure all issues addressed where unique circumstances arise thescale / use ofodevelopment. with thescale / use ofdevelopment.

Province - The Municipal Government Act (MGA) regulates the use ofReserve land for park, recreation and school purposes. Includes a remedy to discharge reserve, where CKC may conflict with the MGA. Partnerships- Provisions of the Joint Use Agreement will provide aframework for ongoing operations and linkages with abutting parkland and community league facilities. Additional private agreements may also be required, dependent upon the nature ofthe partnership.

****************

4.0

IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY

There are several key pillars that are important to consider in achieving the CKC Vision.

These include an appropriate mix of partners, community consultation and land use planning and design considerationlinking the CKC to its service area.

4.1 CKC Partnerships A key challenge in the success of the CKC concept will be finding symbiotic relationships that not only produce benefits for the partners involved, but also sustain the changing needs of the users from within the community that they serve. A wide variety of partnership opportunities exist for schools, ranging from the purely financial (e.g., developer builds a traditional school) to a partnership between school boards (e.g., two schools sharing some facilities) or situations whereby a minor partner (e.g., daycare facility) might occupy surplus space within a school. However, variations of such partnerships will be limited primarily

by MGA legislation, previously outlined in Subsection 3.1 with respect to current Municipal Reserve policies.

While it is anticipated that traditional school development will continue to some degree in new communities, the Model places an emphasis on the awareness and consideration of partnership opportunities, of which some possibilities are described as follows.

A likely partnership scenario could be a two-school facility that creates an opportunity to improve efficiency through cost reduction if certain facilities are shared. In Grande Prairie, Alberta, a multi-dimensional structure, with many shared services and infrastructure including Catholic and public high schools, will save 12.6 per cent (more than $10,000,000) in capital funds alone from the alternative stand alone facilities which would cost $86,500,000 in today's dollars. Furthermore, it is estimated that the annual savings in the operation of the facility will be in the order of $2,300,000, 34 per cent savings in the operational costs of running separate facilities 29.

29

Grande Prairie Community Knowledge Campus ... http://www.cityofgp.com/citygov/initiatives/ckc/Default.htm?wbc-purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished

27

Similarly, Calgary's South Fish Creek Complex 30, a partnership including the City of Calgary, the Calgary Separate School District, the South Fish Creek Recreation Association, the YMCA, Calgary Public Library and the Calgary Board of Education, has saved approximately 10 per cent of what the coast would have been if the facilities had been built separately.

These and other benefits may be derived from other similar kinds of partnering relationships. According to Nathan and Febey:

... a school that shares space with senior citizens can provide many opportunities for its students to interview seniors about their memories of key historical events and learn how these events affected the senior's lives. In the Netherlands, an elementary school has been built under a new apartment building serving families and senior citizens, and thus, it is easier for senior citizens to volunteer in the elementary schoo1 31.

In addition, Nathan and Febey emphasize that at Minnesota's Mall of America:

...sharing with the business community has enabled students at a public school to undertake a variety of learning activities such as comparing marketing strategies, looking at how merchants try to attract people into their stores and discussing advantages and disadvantages of being a part of a national chain32.

Similarly, in Edmonton, Centre High, which occupies leased office space in a converted old warehouse in the heart of the commercial district, has found that partnerships with corporate sponsors, corporate financial aid and mentoring programs have helped prepare students for the world of work and/or post-secondary schooling 33 .

Finally, when a school shares facilities with social service agencies, the benefits allow

both children and families the best access to programs that will serve their needs and allow students a much better opportunity to succeed in school. When different social service agencies

are together in the same building, they are often better able to co-ordinate their eligibility procedures.

Note: According to http://wl.vl.v.calgarvarea.com/southfishcreekassociation/main.htm, this complex consists of a 325,000 sq, ft. facility containing a Sr. Catholic high school, a public library, twin ice arenas, community gym, public education space and a full service YMCA. 31 Nathan and Febey. Smaller, Safer, Smaller, Saner Successful Schools.

32 Nathan and Febey. Smaller, Safer, Smaller, Saner Successful Schools.

33 Kolke, Mark. Creating Schools Without Capital.

30

28

•• •• •• • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• ••

Two such partnership examples are found locally at Edmonton's George P. Nicholson elementary School, which co-exists with a Capital Health services clinic, and at Strathcona County's Trillium Centre, with a Child and Family Services office sharing space with Public and Catholic schools.

While benefits can be attained through finding the right partnership mix, such relationships can result in an innovative way of administering such a facility. According to the Smart Growth Network, budgeting through a joint board and shared risk insurance can help overcome the liability obstacles that often prevent schools from more fully serving as community - * 34 gathering points for other activities34 .

Another significant challenge is in designing the structure(s) to relate to the community, while allowing for the partners to maintain separate identities. More detailed aspects of this challenge are presented in Subsection 4.3 - Land Use Planning and Design Considerations.

4.2 Community Consultation Consultation is a key component of the creation of successful Community Knowledge Campuses. All interests involved in and affected by the CKC concept should be given an early opportunity to contribute to its development. At present, there are various representative channels available to do this, mainly at the Area Structure Plan and Neighbourhood Structure Plan stages.

The placement of and other details related to a potential partnership at the future school/CKC sites will be determined in consultation with key community stakeholders through a Needs Assessment process. While details for such a process have yet to be worked out, the Needs Assessment will provide a rigorous and documented scan of future school and lifelong learning needs that are anticipated for the communities being served (neighbourhood-community-district) within a planning area (ASP/NASP).

It will apply current student generation numbers and

projection/scenarios of expected facility timing and identify issues related to demographics and

34 Smart Growth Network. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation.

29

neighbourhood life cycles. While the assessment process will commence by applying an approach similar to identifying the traditional needs of education providers, it will scope out and examine a wider range of partnership possibilities that may form the basis for a system of CKCs within the planning area.

The FSSS Model distributes future sites among three levels - neighbourhood, community and district. The neighbourhoodlevel may not include a school site, and will generally include a park component to meet resident recreation needs. The community and districtlevels will have a school / CKC site and a joint park site. The overall important role played by Community Leagues will not be diminished.

Figure 5 illustrates conceptually the Model's hierarchy of CKCs relative to each level of service delivery. The District CKC, is the most central having highest degree of access while Community and Neighbourhood CKCs proportionately serve smaller service delivery areas. The figure also illustrates how a remnant or isolated neighbourhood [e.g., isolated by a ravine] may contain a school / CKC. Being a centre of a community however, does not imply that there will be a CKC located at numerous locations throughout a planning area as illustrated. In all likelihood, there might be one, or possibly two, CKCs within an ASP, with remaining sites consisting of some traditional stand-alone schools.

In all likelihood, a Needs Assessment consultation will involve: * * * * * * * * *

The landowner The developer Adjacent landowners Relevant School Board(s) The City of Edmonton School boards and other education providers Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (and other community group representatives) The community league (or nearest adjacent community league) Other partners (YMCA, daycare, community health centres, etc.).

Following approval of the FSSS Summary Report by City Council, development of a protocol for the preparation of a Needs Assessment became a major follow-up activity (see Appendix 7).

30

Figure 5:

Existing

NeI hbourhoods

City Limits

mDistrict

0Juno

Community

Campus (CKC)

2003

Neighbourhood

Levels

4.3 Land Use Planning and Design Considerations There are ongoing efforts to improve the liveability of Edmonton communities. In 1996, the report entitled, Edmonton's Suburban Neighbourhood Design Principles established sixteen principles with the intent of providing guidance for those in the public and private sector who are responsible for the design, servicing, construction and marketing of a new Edmonton neighbourhood. The intent of the guidelines was not only to simply reduce infrastructure costs, but also to optimize use of capital resources.

31

In 1999, a Working Group representing Joint Use Agreement partners and the development industry, prepared a document entitled, Shift To Second Curve Thinking: For New Neighborhood School and Park Site Design. This document endorsed the fact that these principles can be applied to the planning and design of park and school facilities in a joint-use context.

While the FSSS Model is consistent with, and builds upon, the principles outlined in these reports, Subsection 4.3 provides some general guidance with respect to the planning and design of a CKC structure. Guidance as such, while maintaining consistency with the abovenoted documents, focuses on how the CKC might better connect with its service delivery area and overcome challenges associated with designing a facility that serves a multiple of interests.

Examples of how various designs have been applied are provided in support of the following criteria that are critical to the successful implementation of the CKC Vision: Role of the CKC Structure Research conducted during the preparation of this study revealed that schools are considered to be significantly important to the stability of a community. As previously mentioned, the State of New Jersey in its State Development and Re-development Plan is counting on new schools to serve as focal points for community development in both existing and new neighbourhoods. Elsewhere, schools have been described as being centres of communities, community-centred, community-based or community-learning centres. For the FSSS, the Vision states that CKCs will be beacons at the heart of the community.

What does central focus imply in the context of an Edmonton neighbourhood or community? While schools are a significant factor in the development of a community, there are also non-educational entities that are may lay claim, or are recognized as having, a central role in a neighbourhood or a community.

32

Plan Edmonton, for instance, indicates that one of its priorities is to develop economic activity centres, which are described as being a concentrated area where locationaladvantage or existing orplannedfacilitiesprovide special opportunitiesfor economic development.

The Heritage Valley Servicing Concept Design Brief community design principles indicate that a community focal point should be developed and goes on to say that: A compact mixed-use Town Centre will act as the community's main gathering place. It will providefor an active street life and a sense of urbanity at the centre of this urban community. The combination of multi-family housing, retail commercial civic, cultural and recreational uses will provide for a strong community core.

The long-term plan 35 for Edmonton's Community Services Department describes a desired future of neighbourhoods or urban villages that offer opportunities of the arts, culture, leisure and recreation. Such villages would have community hubs defined as a central, multi-use place that adds community vitality and brings people together to share information, gather and obtain services.

Further to the Visioning exercises, where the CKC concept was developed, a CKC is defined by the Working Committee as being: ...a structure, or group of structures, on a site located near the centre of a community. Its primary use is the provision of educational opportunities, along with a range of compatiblepartner uses, which collectively provide a focal point for the community. The scope and scale of the CKC will be proportionateto the delivery area that it serves.

Although a CKC structure(s) will present a predominantly educational function, its central role within a service area can only be sustained if the following specific principles are applied: a) Centrally Located and Linked to the Community: The CKC facility should be centrally located to enhance accessibility while sustaining an integral relationship between the structure and its respective service delivery area. Furthermore,

35 Towards 2010 A New Perspective: An Integrated Service Strategy

33

it is important to keep in mind that, as the city expands outward, this new focal point may also serve an adjacent, previously developed community (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Centrally located and linked to neighbourhoods EXISTIN G NEIGHBOURHOOD

EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD Neighbourhood 2

h0 Neighbourhood 1 Neighbourhood 3

CKC structures must establish linkages into these areas through a variety of means including roadway connections, pedestrian walkways and bike paths. Despite a central location, a CKC will not necessarily be linked to the community if barriers are being created from the siting and design of the structure in relation to both its constituency and its component partners.

Linkages to parks and other open spaces are important to the success of the CKC concept, yet excessive use of open space from large sportsfields and parking lots can isolate the focal point from users. Physical and visual barriers to adjacent sidewalk and street systems can isolate the structure(s) from adjacent neighbourhoods.

The effects of such barriers can be mitigated through a different way of designing a CKC and its components within the community that it is serving. In California, the Camino Nuevo Charter Academy, located in a shopping centre, accommodates recreational activities through a joint use agreement, at a park located three blocks away 36 . In Vaughan Ontario, the Vellore Project, a partnership that combines a Catholic School with a community centre, presents a civic

36

Bingler, Steven. Building a Community-Based School: One Way To Do It-And One Way Not To.

34

face to the roadway, rather than giving in to the usual scenario in which a massive parking lot provides and unfortunate front to the suburban big box37 .

Figure 7 illustrates how such potential

Figure 7: Use of public space as a connector to

barriers can be minimized and that other forms of public space incorporated (e.g., public square or plaza) to serve as connectors to the community.

community

u EAGUE

SSCHOOL

b) Establish an Identifiable Presence in the Community: An identifiable presence or civic face is a significant factor that will enhance the ideal of a CKC structure serving as a community hub or beacon at the heart of the community. While such phrases imply that the CKC structure is physically central to the community that it serves, there must also be some visual recognition symbolic of the structure's important connection to the area that it serves.

The design of the CKC structure in many instances can also be more welcoming by being more visible to the street in terms of what it offers the community. For instance, the design for the fourteen floor, 120,000 square foot Samuel Priest Rose Jewish Community Centre in New York City is conceived as a beacon reaching out into the community. The building is clad in glass with a high degree of transparency between inside activities and the street

37 Rochon, Lisa. Schools Struggle to make the grade 38 see www.dsai.ca/projects/jcc/JCC2.html

35

8.

Closer to home, the TransAlta Tri Leisure Centre, located in Spruce Grove, Alberta, places its two-storey waterslide at the front of the building, visible behind the glass of the tower, helping to accentuate the fun of the facility, thus pulling visitors inside 39 Quoting from Top Ten Design Ideas for Schools in the 21st Century (HMFH Architects) People have built splendid palaces, cathedralsand more recently courthouses in the centre of communities as a symbol of what is important to them. As societies have become complex, multiple focuses have developed. More recently, lifelong learningand education have become increasingly importantas a focus.

Figure 8 illustrates how the design of this Singapore community centre can serve as an identifiable visual link or beacon to the community it serves.

Figure 8: Singapore Community Centre

c) Designed for Efficiency, Safety and Flexibility: The CKC complex should strive for the efficient use of land and building space. This can be accomplished by attempting to avoid designs that either duplicate or make excessive use of space both within and around structure(s).

Facility design plays a significant part in the attainment of these kinds of benefits. While physically connected and sharing some facilities (e.g., kitchen, mechanical plant and exterior athletic facilities) on the same parcel of land, two schools could be run independently. The single kitchen may be larger than that of a single school in square footage, yet smaller than the total for

39 Herzog, Lawrence. A Big New Playpen for Parkland County.

36

•• ••

• • • •

• • • •

• •• • • • • • •

•

both schools. This may mean a reduction in overall construction and staffing costs since there is less equipment and building space. Two schools on the same parcel may also reduce design time since two separate site planning efforts may not be necessary °.

This photo of Edmonton's George P. Nicholson Elementary School (Figure 9) illustrates how a two-floor design can reduce the building footprint required on a CKC site.

Principles of safety and design can be applied, as referenced in the City of Edmonton's

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines'''. It is recommended that guidelines similar to those prepared by Florida's Department of Education be taken into

consideration when designing educational facilities 42 .

• •

While CKC structures must establish convenient connections to the community, they

•

must also encourage the interface to learning and its application to the workforce. They should

•

be designed with flexibility in mind, allowing for the rapidly changing world of information

• • • • •

systems and overcome challenges associated with designing a facility that serves a multiple of interests. According to an article by HMFH Architects (1998): Today's forward-thinking schools house adult-education programs, public libraries, web-site hubs, computer training facilities, public meeting rooms, radio and TV production studios, recreational swimming pools, performing-arts facilities, art studios, athletic training facilities etc. Schools are built in parks and other shared-use settings43.

S

• •

40 America's Schoolhouse Council. Florida's elementary and middle schools share more than academic excellence. Note: An excellent website reference on this school design topic is ... http://www.americasschoolhouse.org

•

4142 Design Guidelines for a Safer City.

Safe School Design Guidelines.

43

•

•

Top Ten Design Ideas for Schools of the 21' Century.

37

Siting School / CKC Facilities How facilities are sited at a CKC location can be accomplished in a variety of ways. For instance, linked activities can either be housed in a single structure or in a campus-like cluster of independent or multi-use structures. The following illustrations (see Figures 10 & 11) and accompanying discussion provide two conceptual scenarios or styles as to what might occur on a CKC designated site: a) Single Structure Design: The

structure style

single

Figure 10: "Single Structure Style" CKC Site Plan

design is increasingly representative '

of the kind of educational structure that is currently being built. For

instance,

NEIGHBOURHOOD "A"

-

:00NEIGHBOURHOO

Gaylord

Michigan's

Community High School, built with the community in mind, houses senior activities, daycare, performing arts0 programs,

Single Fal

community health care

clinics, higher education classes and even

weddings.

activities

has

The

variety

produced

of

SCHOOL WA

Single Family Housing

more

SCHOOL'B"

communication, more volunteerism, more

funding and

more

BIKE

F

general

SATEBOARDA BIKE IPEDESTRI

Neighbourhood

support for the students and their

Commercial

education. The entire community has developed a vested interest in their school44.

44U.S. Department of Education. Schools as Centres ofthe/Community: A Citizen's Guide to Planning and Design.

38

Apartments / Townho

-

A growing number of communities around the country are creating small schools within larger schools. The most value seems to occur when they are designed as distinctive schools, rather than clones of each 45 . The challenge is to design units of comfortable scale, intimate and protected [at the elementary level], yet with ample opportunities for students to reach out into the larger school environment for various functions and activities. The design must provide facilities that are more varied and complex than an elementary school yet not on the daunting scale of a junior-high or high school 46 .

In some schools, each [grade] cluster includes its own special classroom (e.g., art, music, foreign languages), while in others, clusters share the special subject classrooms (e.g., cafeteria, auditorium, gymnasium).

Sites for small schools are usually very compact and require innovative strategies to accommodate bus loading, parent pick-up, staff parking and playfields. The challenge is to design units of a comfortable scale, intimate and protected, yet with ample opportunity for students to reach out into the larger school environment for various functions. In North Carolina, for instance, the public library at Pamlico County High School has two main entrances: directly from the school for students and a separate entrance from the street and adjacent parking 47 . b) Campus Design: As for a campus-styled design, Minnesota's Big Lake Public School District has one elementary school, one middle school and one high school, all on a centrally located campus. In addition to attending to the learning of 2,000 K-12 students, the three schools serve the needs of the entire community. A state-of-the-art theatre, a comprehensive, interactive resource centre and a multi-purpose athletic facility in the high school centre are used to nurture the artistic, physical and academic intelligence of everyone in the community48

45

Nathan and Febey. Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools.

46 Gisolfi , Peter. A sum of its parts.

47 48

Public Schools of North Carolina. Making Current Trends in School Design Feasible.

U.S. Department of Education. Schools as Centres of the/Community: A Citizen's Guide to Planning and Design.

39

Figure 11: "Campus Style" CKC Site Plan

COMMUNITY RINK

SCHOOL "A"

El

40 BRAY

coMunav LEGUE

Playground

SCHOOL "B" (1 - 2 FLOORS)

iBL 'PUB

40

LAZA

5.0 CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND DIRECTION The third and final phase of the project occurred in the spring of 2003 following endorsement of the CKC Model by the inter-agency FSSS Working Committee. On June

2 5 th

Edmonton City Council's Executive Committee approved the FSSS Summary Report, prepared

by Edmonton's Planning and Development Department. Shortly afterwards, on July

,

2 nd

the

document and its recommendations were unanimously approved by City Council 49 (see Appendix 7).

The recommendations formed the basis for several follow-up activities that are being undertaken to ensure successful implementation of the Model. These include:

* Developing Needs Assessment Guidelines; * * * * *

Developing a process through which the Model can be applied to the existing City; Revising student generation numbers to reflect current demographic realities; Ensuring sufficient awareness of the Model amongst affected stakeholders; Incorporating the Model into procedures and related documents (e.g. ASP Terms of Reference, etc.); and Considering recommendations from Alberta Infrastructure's Symposium on Schools.

The Council Agenda and Minutes to this meeting are available on the City's website at: http://www.edmonton.ca/corp services/city clerk/meetings/council meetings.html Copies of the FSSSSummary Report are available at the Edmonton Planning and Development Department.

49

41

REFERENCES Abel David. (2001, November). Leveraged strategies: key to combating staggering school-facility needs in California. Getting Smart. Vol. 4, No 5 Alberta Learning. (2001, May). MLA Committee on Lifelong Learning: What we heard.

Edmonton America's Schoolhouse Council. Florida's elementary and middle schools share more than academic excellence. Retrieved June 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.americassschoolhouse.org/features/corkscrewcasestudy.htm Barrett, Tom. (2002, October 30). Knowledge campus will combine 2 schools, recreational facilities. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton Bigler, Steven. (1999, June). Building a community-based school: one way to do it - one way not to do it. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: httjp://nsbn.org Cotton, Kathleen. (1996, December). Affective and social benefits of small-scale schooling.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ael.org/eric/ City of Calgary Planning and Development. Sustainable Suburbs Study. Calgary. Retrieved

spring 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.calgary.ca/cweb/gateway/gateway.asp?GID=395&CID=0&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent% 2Ecalgarly%2Eca%2FCCA%2FCity%2BHal%2FBusiness%2BUnits%2FDevelopment%2Band%2BBui ding%2BApprovals%2Band%2BPlanning%2Band%2BTransportation%2BPolicy%2FLand%2BUse%2B Planning%2FPublications%2FSustainable%2BSuburbs%2BStudv%2Ehtm City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (1995, December). Design Guidelines for a Safer City. Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (1996, January). Edmonton's Suburban Neighbourhood Design Principles. Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (1998, August 31). Plan Edmonton: Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan (Bylaw No. 11777, as Amended). Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (1999). Edmonton Demographic Profile 1999.

Edmonton City of Edmonton. (1999). Shift to Second Curve Thinking: For New Neighbourhood School and Park Design. Edmonton City of Edmonton Community Services. (2000, July). Towards 2010 A New Perspective: An Integrated Service Strategy. Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (2000, February). Partially Built Neighbourhoods.

Edmonton

43

REFERENCES - continued City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (2001 February). More On Partially Built Neighbourhoods. Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (2001, February). Heritage Valley Servicing Concept Design Brief. Edmonton City of Edmonton Corporate Services. (2002). 2003-2005 Corporate Business Plan. Edmonton City of Edmonton Planning and Development. (2003). Edmonton Socio-Economic Outlook 20032008. Edmonton Edmonton Public School Board. (2002, September 24). Edmonton Public Schools 10 Year Facility Plan. Edmonton Florida Centre for Community Design and Research. (1993), July 28). Safe School Design Guidelines. Florida Department of Education. Retrieved June 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/Projiects/safeschool/safesc/CPTEDGuidlines.htm Gewertz, Catherine. (2001, May 1). The breakup: suburbs try smaller high schools. Education Week. Retrieved November 26, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.com/context/topics/ Grisolfi, Peter. (1999, January 1). A sum of its parts. Primedia Business Magazine and Media.

Retrieved March 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://industryclick.com//magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=32995&mode=print Herzog, Lawrence. (2002, July 25). A big playpen for Parkland County. Real Estate Weekly. Vol. 20, No. 30 Herzog, Lawrence. (2002, December 5). Closing the infrastructure gap. Real Estate Weekly. Vol. 20, No. 49 HMFH Architects. (1998, January 1). Top 10 designs for schools of the 21st century. Primedia Business Magazine and Media. Retrieved June 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://industryclick.com//magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid= 3 3 106&mode=print Irmsher, Karen. (1997). School size. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ael.org/eric/ Kolke, Mark. (2001, May). Creating schools without capital. American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved January 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001 05/2001_kolke.htm Lackney, Jeffrey. (2000, November). Thirty-three educational design principles. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved September 23, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://schoolstudio.engr.wisc.edu/33principles.html

44

REFERENCES - continued

Lord, Cathy. (2002, September 4). Twin Brooks school opens amid rumble of backhoes.

Edmonton Journal. Edmonton.

Louie, Jacqueline. (2000, March). Having a Grande time. Alberta Investor. See also, retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.cityofgp.com/citygov/initiatives/ckc/Default.htm?wbcpurpose=Basic&WBCMODE=Present ationUnpublished McKee, B. (2001, June). Quick, build us a school. Architecture Minister's Symposium on Schools. (2002, December). Newsletter. Alberta Infrastructure.

Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.infras.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype506/production/minsympschl.htm Nathan, Joe, Febey, Karen. (2001). Safer, smaller saner, successful schools. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington, D.C. National Neighbourhood Coalition. (1999). Smart growth, better neighbourhoods: communities leading the way. Washington, D.C. Neighbourhood School and Park Design Review Workshop Group. (1999, April). Shift to second

curve thinking for new neighbourhood school and park design. Edmonton, Alberta New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. (2001, June). Creating communities of learning.

Retrieved June 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nj.gov/dca/publications/ New Schools, Better Neighbourhoods. (1999, September). About NSBN. Retrieved January 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nsbn.org Public Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education. (2000, November). Making current trends in design feasible. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Raywid, Mary Anne. (1996). Downsizing schools in big cities. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ael.org/eric/ Rochan, Lisa. (2002, June 12). Schools struggle to make the grade. Globe and Mail. Toronto Sanati, Maryam. (2002, March). A fine balance. Report on Business - Globe and Mail. Toronto Sanoff, Henry. (2001). A Visioning Process for Designing Responsible Schools. North Carolina State University of Architecture.

Shoshkes, Ellen. (2001). Smarter planning for schools and communities in New Jersey. Retrieved September 5, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings01/SHOSHKES/shoshkes.htm

45

50 REFERENCES - continued

Simons, Paula. (2002, September, 17). Students pouring into schools on edges of growing city.

Edmonton Journal. Edmonton Smart Growth Network. (2002, January). Getting to smart growth: 100 policies for implementation. International City/County Management Association (ICMA). See also http://www.smartgrowth.org Stevenson, Kenneth. (2002, September). Ten Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington, D.C. Turchansky, Ray. (2001, December 1). Children are disappearing from housing markets.

Edmonton Journal. Edmonton U.S. Department of Education. (2000, April). Schools as centres of the community: A citizen's guide to planning and design. Editorial Publications Centre, Washington, D.C.

50 Note: Many of these references have been copied and are available at the Edmonton Planning and Development Department.

Since the printing of this document, some of the websites identified may no longer exist.

46

KEY DEFINITIONS Area Structure Plan A statutory plan that identifies where residential, commercial, institutional and recreational sites will be located and how essential municipal services such as water and sewer systems, roads and fire protection will be provided. These plans also describe the number of people that are expected to live in the new area and how development will be staged over time.

Community A community is two or more neighbourhoods which share infrastructure and a broader range or magnitude of facilities including those typical of neighbourhood as well as churches, libraries, business ventures, expanded commercial opportunities, drop in centres, seniors facilities and/or a variety of schools.

Community Knowledge Campus (CKC) A structure or group of structures, on a site located near the centre of a community. Its primary use is the provision of educational opportunities, along with a range of compatible partner uses, which collectively provide a focal point for the community. The scope and scale of the CKC will be proportionate to the delivery area that it serves.

Focal Point A focal point is a grouping of facilities and infrastructure within a common geographical location which acts as a destination point for a variety of purposes to serve a neighbourhood or community.

Neighbourhood A neighbourhood is a grouping of residences housing 3,000-5,000 residents complemented by shared infrastructure such as collector roadways and drainage facilities such as schools, parks community league buildings and/or commercial sites.

Open Space All land and water areas, either publicly-owned or offering public access.

Partnership Both public and private partnerships opportunities, individually or collectively, are considered project stakeholders that can both enhance and legitimize the planning process. Their particular needs and unique perspectives will involve consideration for specific programs, operational agreements, project funding models and maintenance conditions.

47

0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *

APPENDICES

S 0 S 0

0

S 0 0 0 0 S S 0 0 0 S S S S S 0 0 0 S 5 S S

49

Appendix la

City of Edmonton

A

1999

y...

O)K

- 6 K -8 8

Edmonton Public Schools

Vacant Sites *7-9

*

SI

9 - 12

A

K -9

Neighbourhood Legend

0-

WN.c

A.T

10 -12

Stnndard Neighborhood Boundarios Full Neighbourhood Namo

00 00 00 .O ,

O

,

no

cis]

0o 0a

0 0 0

"

..

A.

O

08 eeM *

v

F

lesnA O.A.

El--

UA

___

Appendix lb

A

City of Edmonton 1999 O

Edmonton Catholic Schools Vacant Sites

a., e.

Oft

CE CE CEJH

MI

*CJH

CSH Neighbourhood Legend Standard Neighbourhood DuNLt

Houndarie

@0

Full Neighbourbood Name

fu

00

..

a0

14 A

i ~ ~~~~~

.m

7

I IL

Ih

' [a .... oo["

10 F0 A n -

80 s r

30 "

50 AAe

M\W.,.

\.

Asptsm 70

--.-k._ - ---

0

Appendix 2

Future School Sites Study C

I

T

Y

0

F

EDMONTON

VISIONING WORKSHOP SESSION REPORT

Prepared by Western Management Consultants

December 2001

•n

n

I'

DEVELOPMENT A N P

INTRODUCTION SESSION OBJECTIVES The City of Edmonton is currently undertaking a comprehensive study of the planning and development of future schools sites within the City of Edmonton. As part of this process, the Planning and Development Department invited the major stakeholder organizations (see Appendix 1) involved in school site planning to participate in a workshop session designed to develop a "shared vision for the role and placement of school sites in future Edmonton communities".

The specific objectives of the "visioning session" were to:

>

identify educational and user trends impacting school site planning decisions;

>

reach agreement on key land use principles to be used as a foundation to make planning decisions related to school sites;

>

define a preferred future in terms of desired characteristics of school sites within wellplanned communities of the future; and

>

receive initial suggestions with respect to a number of related policy issues.

Approach

A facilitated group process was used to engage the thirty participants in a discussion of the following key questions: 1. What key educational and user trends/needs should be factored into planning decisions related to school/park sites?

2. Identify the key land use planning principles that should form the foundation for decisionmaking regarding the location of schools.

3. Considering these principles, describe the preferred future in terms of key characteristics of school sites as components of well planned communities/ neighbourhoods.

4. Within the context of these trends, planning principles and the preferred future, please recommend key policy directions for school sites in Edmonton relative to the following issues: *

Co-location of school and non-school functions;

*

Provincial school funding policy and regulations;

*

Joint use agreements; and

*

Attendance boundaries for schools.

5. Please comment on the following:

*

*

the current technical processes for determining catchment areas;

*

the effectiveness of current land use planning process in terms of provision of school/park sites; and potential to use alternate school formats and venues. (E.g., home schooling, charter schools, etc.) and the impact of technology/distance learning on

school/park sites.

The outputs from the session are documented in the next sections of this report under the appropriate headings and tables.

Session Results

Major Trends and User Needs Impacting School Site Planning: Session participants discussed the major educational trends and user needs that were likely to influence the planning of school/park sites. Major trends identified are documented in Table 1 on page 4, and user needs are detailed in Table 2 on page 5.

Land Use Planning Principles: Session participants identified the key land use planning principles that should form the foundation for decision-making regarding the location of schools.

These are detailed in Table 3 on page 6.

Preferred Future: Considering the trends, needs and planning principles developed, participants articulated their "vision" for future school site planning in Edmonton. This is reported in Table 4 on page 7.

Initial Policy Directions: Participants were asked to provide input regarding four selected policy areas impacting the future of school site planning including: co-location of school and non-school functions; provincial school funding policy and regulations; joint use agreements; and attendance boundaries for schools. The results are detailed in Table 5 on pages 8 and 9.

Technical Planning Issues: Session participants were asked to comment on a number of technical planning issues including: technical processes for determining catchment areas; the effectiveness of the current land use planning process in terms of provision of school/park sites; and the potential to use alternate school formats and venues including technology and distance learning. The results are documented in Table 6 on page 10.

Table 1: Educational Trends Influencing School Site Planning

Key educational trends identified that impact school site planning and development included:

>

Life-long education is an enduring and growing trend in our society.

>

Globalization is exerting an increasing impact on the interests, needs and demands placed on school systems.

*

Demands for a broader range of curricular offerings are increasing as diverse interests seek expression in the educational system.

>

Parents and students increasingly value and expect choice. Returning to closed boundaries from the open boundary system in Edmonton is not a viable option.

>

Parents and the community are more involved in school site-based decision-making and increasingly expect to be meaningfully involved in key decisions that impact their schools.

>

More school systems are opting for year-round schooling to optimize the use of expensive infrastructure.

>

There is increased demand for schools that represent specific "communities of interest"; e.g., fine arts, academic challenge, language based, values based, etc. In these cases, the physical location of the school in the neighbourhood is viewed as a secondary consideration.

>

The increasing awareness of environmental issues and the need to protect our environment are impacting both the curriculum and how we plan school/park sites.

>

Wireless communications will increasingly be a factor in planning school sites.

>

The number of private and alternative schools in the school system are increasing.

>

The aging of the population is impacting the types of services and facilities that are required both within specific communities as well as City-wide.

>

The limitations on funding, changing views of the role of government and the private sector are impacting the way we think about the school system and how it delivers education.

Table 2: Key User Needs and Considerations in Planning Future School Sites Participants identified the following as key user needs and considerations when planning and developing future school sites.

>

What constitutes a "neighbourhood" for the purpose of this project must be defined; and the primary purposes/roles of a multiple use/school site of the future as a central element in this neighbourhood needs to be understood.

>

High quality, well-planned school systems are critical to the development of an educated labour force, economic growth, population growth and the high quality of life that residents of Edmonton desire.

>

Balancing the need for schools with availability of resources in an equitable manner is required.

>

Increasing mobility of students due to open boundaries will mean an increased need for transit services to communities.

>

Parents of elementary aged students, in particular, have a strong preference for schools located close to their homes.

>

There is a need to accommodate the fact that a substantial number of parents drive their children to school, thus impacting site access requirements and preferred location relative to roadways.

>

There is an increasing need to provide quality indoor and outdoor recreation facilities in conjunction with the school site.

>

Addressing our existing problem with school site vacancies is a high priority. With over forty communities developing in the City, there are many neighbourhoods without school services in their area.

>

Alberta Infrastructure guidelines for the funding of school capital construction projects, and the practice of funding school districts primarily from property taxes, need to be reviewed.

Table 3: Planning Principles

Session participants identified the key land use planning principles that should form the foundation for decision-making regarding the location of schools. They are as follows:

>

The development and utilization of the school site should reflect the needs of a defined geographic community; i.e.; "form should follow function".

>

Meeting the educational needs of students must be the primary consideration; however, the potential to colocate some required public services, as well as the needs of community leagues, other community groups, seniors and other interests should be considered.

>

The types of functions and activities that are co-located on or in close proximity to the school site must not detract from the creation and maintenance of an effective environment for teaching and learning.

>

School site development should reflect a commitment to life-long learning and the integration of learners of all ages.

>

Flexibility, adaptability and accommodation of multiple users over the life cycle of the community should be a high priority.

>

The site should serve a defined catchment area and be large enough to accommodate multiple uses, with adequate access, parking and recreational space appropriate to the functions.

>

The site and facilities should be designed to optimize its use - hours of operation, seasonality, multiple users, etc.

>

All stakeholders have an obligation to be responsible users of land, consider the needs of other stakeholders and focus on the common good of the community.

>

High priority should be placed on locating elementary schools closer to student homes; for grades 7-12 this is less important.

>

Where possible, some adaptive, natural areas should be included with each school site.

>

Design considerations should take into account ongoing operating and maintenance costs, including minimizing the potential for vandalism (use CPTED process).

>

Site planning processes must ,recognize the legislative right of separate, public, and francophone school systems to exist.

>

New school sites should be allocated only if a needs assessment demonstrates that additional school capacity will be required to service demand.

Table 4: Vision - Preferred Future for School Sites as Integral Components of Well Planned Communities

School sites in communities of the future will be centrally located, multi-use "Community Knowledge Campuses" that serve students and learners of all ages and house a range of complementary recreational, community and public services. They will be "beacons" at the heart of the community that are relevant, adaptive, flexible and accessible.

To achieve this vision: legislative and regulatory regimes that support sound planning decisions and processes will be in place (MGA, Alberta Infrastructure, School Act, Joint Use Agreement, flexible zoning, planning processes, etc.); S

the services/functions to be provided at the site will be determined in consultation with key community stakeholders (needs assessment) and form the basis for the timely planning and development of the site;

S

land uses and facilities will be flexible and designed to transcend aging populations in the community and accommodate changes; sites will be adequately sized to accommodate proposed multiple uses, appropriately aligned with the transportation network to ensure ease of access, and have adequate parking; and

> the sites will be primarily publicly owned *; however, co-locating private businesses, private/ public partnerships and/or multi-agency service delivery ventures will be encouraged where these are consistent with established planning principles and are of mutual benefit. **

Notes: * "Publicly owned" does not necessarily mean municipal reserve. ** While there was not unanimous agreement on the issue of private versus public ownership of school sites, the majority of the participants favored publicly owned sites as the primary operating framework. There was recognition that the private sector ownership option in some cases may be viable or preferable and should be considered on a case by case basis.

Table 5: Initial Policy Directions Participants provided input regarding a number of selected policy areas impacting future school site planning. Their suggestions are reported under the appropriate topics in this table.

Co-location of Future Schools and Non-school Functions.

>

Amend the MGA and other legislation to permit multi-use community/school sites consistent with the recommended vision.

>

Involve communities in long-term planning of multiple non-school uses that will complement school use and satisfy community needs.

>

Pass legislation/policy requiring monitoring of progress against the goals to ensure an ongoing focus on community aspirations.

>

Control land uses adjacent to the multi-use school sites to ensure compatible uses.

>

Maintain the ownership of land and buildings by the municipality. Manage relationships with private sector operators through leasehold arrangements. *

*

Consider locating school buildings on private land through partnership relationships rather than

Municipal or School Reserve lands.* Provincial School Funding Policy and Regulations

>

Review the practice of funding school district operations primarily from property taxes.

>

Develop transparent, long lasting, effective capital funding formulae, based on the realities of the school system today, including more flexible funding options for school boards to accommodate partnerships and

joint ventures

>

Re-consider the utilization-based capital funding formula in favour of other measures (travel time, capture rate) and create a flexible process for decommissioning schools, transferring the value from old schools to new, and ensuring community needs are met in the process. *

Note:

While there was not unanimous agreement on the issue of private versus public ownership of school sites, the majority of the participants favored publicly owned sites as the primary operating framework. There was recognition that the private sector ownership option in some cases may be viable or preferable. and should be considered on a case by case basis.

"Publicly owned" does not necessarily mean municipal reserve.

Table 5: Initial Policy Directions Create more local community control over the allocation of capital for community multi-use/school sites; and recognize alternate community uses of the site and buildings over the life cycle of the community.

Ensure legislation encourages appropriate open space and green space in the multi-use site, and require a CPTED process.

Define clearly commercial uses and the appropriateness of such uses on community multi-use sites and adjacent lands.

Link School Board standards for building schools to the municipal planning processes, so that communities are more assured of having schools built within them as they develop.

Joint Use Agreements Maintain the community school philosophy within the joint use agreement.

Improve internal communications among Joint Use Agreement partners and external communications with the community regarding joint use agreements/operations.

Expand the community joint use agreements to reflect a new community multi-use concept, to include more flexibility, and include community "value-added" groups as signatories (community league, etc.).

Ensure the joint use agreement system, with its more open approach to partnerships, provides equity between communities in Edmonton.

Attendance Boundaries For Schools Recognize that open boundaries have a positive impact on education opportunities, and will continue to exist in Edmonton. The municipal boundaries, however, will remain as a delineator of the service area.

Recognize the many definitions of community - geographic, interests, ethnicity etc. - as we plan schools of the future through community-based processes.

Ensure that equitable access to opportunities for a quality education is a fundamental principle that underpins considerations of attendance boundaries.

Table 6: Responses to Specific Technical Planning Issues Current Technical Processes For Determining Catchment Areas Review and revise as necessary, the methods of student population generation to reflect today's realities: single parent families, later family formation, empty nesters, mature market communities, and other societal facts; and consider these in the context of the life cycle of the community. *The process for identifying school sites as surplus and disposing of them needs to be reviewed and streamlined to increase effectiveness.

Add mechanisms to consider zoning changes and life cycle of the community to technical processes.

S

Use better data, coordinate sector areas and catchment areas.

Change the process of valuing cash in lieu from the present raw land value to the value of serviced land.

Effectiveness of Current Land Use Planning Processes in Providing School/Park Sites Area Structure Plans should be dynamic and reviewed on a regular basis so that school site generation requirements can adapt to change as the community develops.

*The

present system is cumbersome and inflexible to change requirements.

Potential Impact of Alternative School Formats

Schools will remain an important physical place supporting a sense of belonging and community social wellness. Schools will continue to play a pivotal role in the socialization process. >

Elementary school demand and venue will not change significantly - people prefer elementary schools in the neighbourhood and close to their homes.

SAltemrnative

schooling (charter schools, home schooling, distance learning etc.) will continue to be popular for a minority of families, and school generation calculations need to account for this change. However, schools as physical gathering places for the purpose of education will continue to dominate the education landscape for the foreseeable future.

APPENDIX 1 Participants in the Visioning Workshops, held on November 8, and December 11, 2001, included representatives from the following key stakeholder groups: Edmonton Planning and Development Department (Study leader) Edmonton Community Services Department (Joint Use Agreement partner) Edmonton Public School Board (Joint Use Agreement partner) Edmonton Catholic School Board (Joint Use Agreement partner) Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues Urban Development Institute Alberta Infrastructure Alberta Municipal Affairs Edmonton Transportation and Streets Department Edmonton Asset Management and Public Works Department Edmonton Police Service Edmonton Public Schools Student-Parent Council Edmonton Sports Council Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists Association, Canadian Institute of Planners Alberta Association of Architects University of Alberta, Faculty of Education Western Management Consultants Ltd. (Facilitator consultant) Planning and Development Department December 2001

S

Fu~tur School Ses

Study si

t

I 58MIF I

t

t

Appendix 3

t

SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES Edmonton Future Schools Site Study - Edmonton has been faced with inner city school closures in combination with difficulties in providing timely school construction in new growth areas. The current city planning process is for the developer, through subdivision, to dedicate 10% of land area as municipal reserve for future school/parkland purposes. This land is distributed via a Joint Use Agreement administered by a committee of school/park officials. On the basis of a catchment area formula, the Provincial government funds construction of schools.

The City of Edmonton is undertaking a study of how school sites are being planned and provided for in future communities and neighbourhoods. This review is examining what improvements can be made to address a complex issue that involves many interests/stakeholders. As a part of the review, we are interested in learning how other municipalities are addressing this issue. Your input is very much appreciated.

Please return the e-mail survey by January 15, 2002 to: doug.kostashuk@gov.edmonton.ab.ca 1. Trends - Identify at least five trends that you anticipate may significantly impact future school site planning and development in your municipality (e.g., demographic change, technology, etc.) *a)

b)

c) d)

e) More trends?

2.

Current practice - Please outline your planning process for school/park sites in new growth areas. What, if any, are some problems/challenges/solutions?

School/park site planning process:

3. Neighbourhood Concept/Desimn re Schools: a) Do you consider a schooL/park to be a necessary and centralfocus point to a neighbourhood? Please expand on this.

School/park as focal point: and b) Do you have neighbourhood design guidelines/practices regarding the number and location ofschools in new neighbourhoods?

4. Multiple Use - Is your municipality considering, or now implementing, policies that support the development of multiple use structures that contain schools in combination with other community-oriented land use activities (e.g., day care, medical centre, library, "community resource centre", etc.)? If so, then please provide a briefdescription of the experience to date, plus anyfuture direction that is anticipated Experiences: 5. Future Look - What changes do you see in communities/neighbourhoods of the future regarding provision of school sites? Feel free to expand on this.

The future?

Please provide any relevant reports/studies that your jurisdiction may have that you feel would be of benefit to our study.

Appendix 4

S.

School Facility Partnerships in Alberta Use of Municipal Reserve Zoning

Comments, concerns, etc.

Project

Land Use Activities

Trillium Centre (Strathcona County)

A Public and Catholic School combined with a regional office for Child and Family Services in a single structure.

Structure was developed on Municipal Reserve (MR) lands.

Public Service

The Public Service zone allows for the activities that do not comply with the MR policies. Despite this, nobody has complained about the Child and Family Services offices.

Dawe Centre (Red Deer)

Single structure containing a public elementary school, city-owned community centre (rink, pool & library) and a Catholic juniorelementary school.

Structure was developed on MR lands as all activities are consistent with MGA policies.

Public Service

A joint use agreement's owns their component in the structure in place for operating the overall facility. Parkland is owned by the city and the structure is a "tenants-in-common" relationship [like a condo] with each tenant owning their particular component within the structure.

George P. Nicholson Elementary School (Edmonton)

Structure includes a 350 student public elementary school, a daycare and Capital Health Services clinic,

MR designation for the parkland and School Reserve (SR) for the school envelops. SR is removed from the entire site (Lot 112) as per agreement between JUA partners concerning the non-MGA compatible portion of the site. The Health Centre/YMCA daycare is leased out by the school board.

Urban Service

The 5794 sq. metre complex, located in Twin Brooks, could be representative of a neighbourhood-levelCKC.

Fox Run Public School/Mother Theresa Catholic School (Sylvan Lake)

Within a single structure, each school owns their portion (58%/42%) and shares use of the gym, foods and fashion, industrial education, commercial centre and fine arts centre,

Structure was developed on MR lands

Public Facility (PF) an area for parks, playground, recreation

This, the first joint Public/Catholic school partnership in Alberta, has had some issues concerning bussing and course timetables.

Grande Prairie Community Knowledge Campus (Grande Prairie)

Structure contains two high schools (Public & Catholic), a rec. complex (arenas, soccer), performing arts theatre, mult- purpose gym, wellness centre, food court, etc.

No MR acquired/designated. Land purchased from a development consortium as fee simple titled land.

Public Service District

This scale of structure could be representative of a districtlevel CKC. The City owns and operates the twin rinks building, the Catholic school board owns and operates the Catholic high school. They are currently working on a governance agreement for the common space components which includes the community gym, theatre, tech centre. They have a concept on the sharing arrangement but the lawyers are still working on the clauses. As for the food services, education institutions and recreation facilities have food courts so it is not a problem.

South Fish Creek Educational / Recreation Complex (Calgary)

Structure contains a Sr. Catholic High School, a public library and a YMCA

This project is on reserve land. However, given that the library portion was not a permitted use, this portion was taken out of the land reserve, which was relatively easy given that it is still a "public" facility.

.

**

0* 0

****

0

0

This scale of structure could be representative of a districtlevel CKC.

*

0 0

0 **

0 0

Appendix 5 Lewis Farms Concept Illustrating the Number and Distribution of School and Parks (1980s) ' "'-

-L

"*l

L

r-

-

LB W15,A-,-,-

l'

--

Ja

"

ftt

.'.'_

0

. m.lm

5LI

-L4,-

Development Concept

.. _L ... .........

- ; Development Concept

8ac.

8

Heritage Valley Servicing Concept Design Brief (!990s) Heritage Valley Servicing Design Brief (1990s) " ''"".....

'-Concept ""...... '' °°

*

,e,,,.

07 o°

2

51

2 I4

01 01 0

-0

-r-

Appendix 6 Alberta Municipal Government Act (Relevant exerpts) From Part 16, Division 8: 665(1) A council may by bylaw require that a parcel of land or a part of a parcel of land that it owns or that it is in the process of acquiring be designated as municipal reserve, school reserve, municipal and school reserve, environmental reserve or public utility lot.

666(1) Subject to section 663, a subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision (a) to provide part of that parcel of land as municipal reserve, school reserve or municipal and school reserve, (b) to provide money in place of municipal reserve, school reserve or municipal and school reserve, or (c) to provide any combination of land or money referred to in clauses (a) and (b).

(2) The aggregate amount of land that may be required under subsection (1) may not exceed the percentage set out in the municipal development plan, which may not exceed 10% of the parcel of land less the land required to be provided as environmental reserve and the land made subject to an environmental reserve easement.

From Part 16, Division 9: 671(1) Subject to section 676(1), environmental reserve must be left in its natural state or be used as a public park.

(2) Municipal reserve, school reserve or municipal and school reserve may be used by a municipality or school authority or by

them jointly only for any or all of the following purposes: (a) a public park; (b) a public recreation area; (c) school authority purposes; (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different

purposes.

•• •• •

• •

Appendix 7 City Council Minutes — July 2", 2003 As copied from City of Edmonton website: http://www.edmonton.ca/cotp services/city clerk/meetings/council meetings.htrn1

•

•• •

• • • •

• •

O • • • • • • •

E.1.b.

Future School Sites. >

MOVED T. Cavanagh — A. Bolstad: 1. That the "Future School Sites Study (FSSS) Summary Report," (Attachment 1 of the June 3, 2003, Planning and Development Department report), be endorsed as the FSSS strategy/model for provision of school sites in future communities.

2. That Administration be instructed to include in its work program activities necessary to ensure implementation of the "FSSS Report." This will include activities such as, but not limited to, the following: a) revise current terms of reference for preparation of Structure Plans and Servicing Design Briefs for new areas to include reference to the FSSS

strategy/model, and the requirement for a "School/Community Knowledge Campus (CKC) Needs Assessment;" b) incorporate "FSSS Report" findings/direction into any applicable future planning initiatives, such as revised Suburban Design Guidelines, Municipal Development Plan reviews, and the like; Joint Use Agreement reviews; c) involve stakeholders in the implementation of relevant tasks and ensure sufficient awareness of Study findings by plan proponents/stakeholders;

•

d) revise current student generation numbers so as to reflect current demographic realities, and ensure their application in the preparation of new plans; and

• • •

e) monitor the effectiveness of the FSSS strategy/model by a bi-annual review by Administration.

• • •

•• •

3. That Administration, in consultation with stakeholders, develop an appropriate process through which the FSSS strategy/model will be applied to the 'existing' portion of the city.

This includes areas where there are approved plans with designated future school sites, or assembled vacant sites, or underutilized built sites.

4. That Administration consider any report and recommendations from the 'Alberta Infrastructure Symposium on Schools', currently in progress, and, if deemed necessary, prepare a report back on any significant implications.

W. Hughes, Planning and Development Department, made a presentation.

Mayor B. Smith vacated the Chair and Deputy Mayor J. Melnychuk presided. Mayor B. Smith left the meeting.

L. Benowski, General Manager, and W. Hughes, Planning and Department Department; A. B. Maurer, City Manager; and J. Tustian, General Manager, Community Services Department, answered Council's questions.

Mayor B. Smith re-entered the meeting. Deputy Mayor J. Melnychuk vacated the Chair and Mayor B. Smith presided.

L. Benowski, General Manager, and W. Hughes, Planning and Department Department; A. B. Maurer, City Manager; and J. Tustian, General Manager, Community Services Department, answered Council's questions.

AMENDMENT MOVED K. Leibovici - B. Anderson: 1.

That in Part 2(e) the words "and report back to City Council through the Executive Committee" be added to the end of the sentence.

2.

That in Part 4 the words "if deemed necessary" be deleted and the words "to return back to City Council through the Executive Committee" be added to the end of the sentence.

FOR THE AMENDMENT:

B. Smith; B. Anderson, J. Batty, A. Bolstad, T. Cavanagh, E. Gibbons, R. Hayter, L. Langley, K. Leibovici, S. Mandel, J. Melnychuk, M. Phair, D. Thiele.

CARRIED CARRIED

MOTION, AS AMENDED, ON ITEM E.1.b., put: 1. That the "Future School Sites Study (FSSS) Summary Report," Planning & Dev. (Attachment 1 of the June 3, 2003, Planning and Development Department report), be endorsed as the FSSS strategy/model for provision of school sites in future communities.

2. That Administration be instructed to include in its work program activities necessary to ensure implementation of the "FSSS Report."

This will include activities such as, but not limited to, the following: a) revise current terms of reference for preparation of Structure Plans

_

and' Servicing Design Briefs for new areas to include reference to the FSSS strategy/model, and the requirement for a "School/ Community Knowledge Campus (CKC) Needs Assessment;" b) incorporate "FSSS Report" findings/direction into any applicable future planning initiatives, such as revised Suburban Design Guidelines, Municipal Development Plan reviews, and the like; Joint Use Agreement reviews;

F.l.a. Continued Planning & Dev. Community Svcs.

Exec. Committee Due: Sep. 3, 2003 Due: Sep. 3, 2003

c) involve stakeholders in the implementation of relevant tasks and ensure sufficient awareness of Study findings by plan proponents/ stakeholders; d) revise current student generation numbers so as to reflect current demographic realities, and ensure their application in the preparation of new plans; and e) monitor the effectiveness of the FSSS strategy/model by a biannual review by Administration, and report back to City Council through the Executive Committee.

3. That Administration, in consultation with stakeholders, develop an

appropriate process through which the FSSS strategy/model will be applied to the 'existing' portion of the city. This includes areas where there are approved plans with designated future school sites, or assembled vacant sites, or underutilized built sites.

r

4. That Administration, consider any report and recommendations from the 'Alberta Infrastructure Symposium on Schools', currently in progress, and prepare a report back on any significant implications to return to City Council through the Executive Committee.

CARRIED FOR THE MOTION, AS AMENDED: *K. *D.

0

B. Smith; B. Anderson, J. Batty, A. Bolstad, T. Cavanagh, E. Gibbons, R. Hayter, L. Langley, Leibovici, S. Mandel, J. Melnychuk, M. Phair, Thiele.