Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues

April 12, 2012 Board Meeting Neighbourhood Park Consultations & Surplus School Sites Report:
Suffice to say that neighbourhood park planning throughout the city is in flux and that contemplated changes could have a major impact on the operations of community leagues. Consequently, the EFCL and its member leagues need to be fully involved in the decisions being made. Major parks planning decisions will be made for: a) established neighbourhoods with vacant surplus school sites, b) mature neighbourhoods with closed schools, and c) new neighbourhoods, where larger schools are planned and special parks are being designed by developers. a) Parks with Vacant Surplus School Sites 1980s & 90s neighbourhoods The schools boards have agreed to review their school site inventory every three years. Some sites were declared surplus in 2006 and in 2009, and another set will be declared surplus this year. So far, all of the vacant surplus sites have been in neighbourhoods built in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2006, 20 sites were declared surplus and transferred to the City of Edmonton. City Council passed a motion to dedicate all of these sites for the First Time Home Buyers Program. They also got the Province to remove the municipal and school reserve status on all 20 parks on which the school sites were located, rather than just removing the reserve status on the school site. The Administrative report justifying this broad sweep states that flexibility in the location of the row housing developments was needed. Thus all lands on these parks are zoned to accommodate row housing (zones CS1- CS4); however, City Administration has stated firmly that Council gave direction in camera to only develop housing on the school building sites. Not only did the City rezone whole parks and remove the park & school reserve status on the land, they also got the Province to remove the requirement for a public notice of the rezoning, public hearing and appeal in the rezoning and development of the land and the requirement for a public hearing on the removal of the reserve status, as specified in the Municipal Government Act. Naturally, community leagues and the public in general have not been pleased.

However, the city administration has indicated that as the 2006 surplus school building envelopes are developed, the city will attempt to rezone the remainder of the site to AP (parks) and US (Urban Services). Two of the 2006 sites have been developed. Local communities were, and will continue to be given an opportunity to be involved in the design of the residential sites. However, they have not been given an opportunity to have input into the location of the residential development on the park lands. The remaining First Time Home Buyer (now called First Place Program) sites will be developed in phases in the next few years. In 2009, another 20 sites were declared surplus. This time Council did not immediately decide on the future use of the sites. Instead, the city administration has taken leadership on these lands. For example, the Aldergrove site was chosen by the administration to be used for a dry pond. The administration wants all of the other sites to be used for residential development. Specific sites are being considered for seniors housing, medium density housing, or houses with secondary suites. Again the surplus school sites are primarily in 1980s and 1990s neighbourhoods with generous park sites, thus the administration does not see any need to save the school sites for park. Nevertheless, the administration has not provided any documentation indicating how they determined that the vacant school lands were not needed. Some leagues who have to travel to find an available soccer field are questioning the wisdom of losing future playfields. The city administration chose to begin the consultation with the public by sending out a Request for Expression of Interest. The Request was sent to leagues and others in November, 2011. People were asked to indicate their interest in developing on the vacant land and to indicate how they would fund their development. We are aware of two community leagues who took the opportunity to express their desires for the site. These two leagues did not strongly object to housing being developed on part of the park; however, they were interested in having the residences relocated to a different location on the park. To date, the administration has not indicated whether or not they would consider these requests. We are also aware that at least one other league is considering what they could do with their 2009 site, if they could find the resources to purchase the land. There are major decisions to be made with regards to the 2009 surplus sites and their host park. City Council has not yet made any decisions regarding these sites. They could decide to designate the entire parcel as Municipal Reserve (MR) which allows it to be used for park, or they could dispose of the land through the normal Reserve Disposition process, or they could designate the school building envelope portion of the reserve land as Community Service Reserve (CSR) which would allow the land to be used for the following purposes: a) public library, b) police station, fire station, or an ambulance facility, c)non-profit day care facility, d) a non-profit senior citizens

facility, e) a municipal facility providing service directly to the public; and, f) affordable housing. City Council has not made any decision on the public consultation process with regards to the initial decision to keep the land as park, dispose of the land or keep it for community service purposes. No public involvement process has been approved by Council, and there is no indication when or if the public will be asked to contribute to the discussion. Prior to consulting the public, city managers have already made a decision to recommend against retaining all but one site for civic purposes. This may be a well-founded decision, but to date the public has not received any reports from the city administration outlining their analysis and rational for that decision. It is time for the city administration to share their detailed analysis and have the public comment on that analysis so they can bring additional information to the table before Council decides whether or not any of the sites should be retained for public uses. Not only does Council need to decide how they want to involve the public in the decision to dispose of school sites or keep them for parks or community service purposes, Council also needs to decide how they will involve the public at the next stage of planning. The public involvement process for Community Service Reserve sites has not yet been determined. The new provisions of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) waive the normal public notification and public hearing requirements of the MGA when making planning decisions on Community Service Reserve uses. However, Edmonton City Council could follow the example of Calgary City Council and adopt a policy to follow normal public engagement, notification and public hearing processes for planning and development decisions on CSR land. EFCL could request Council to do so. If Council decides to dispose of the sites and use them for market housing, the sites will be rezoned within the normal public hearing process and the city will be required to seek removal of the reserve status on the site. Once the purpose of the surplus school site has been determined, then the whole park site may need to be re-conceptualized. Depending upon the final location and timing of residential development, the location of various recreation facilities and playfields may need to be re-planned. The school sites were placed for easy sharing of facilities with community facilities shared parking lots, shared playgrounds and recreation facilities. The school sites are not always the best location for private property, in the interest of the residents, or the community attempting to integrate public uses. Some major re-planning of the parks may need to be undertaken if private land breaks up the integration of the public park. Also, additional buffer zones may need to be created to mitigate the inevitable problems of noise and balls interfering with private residential property.

b) Mature Neighbourhoods with closed schools School Boards are poised to close multiple schools and dispose of school buildings as well as school yards. Unlike the 1980s school sites, many of the school yards in older neighbourhoods are owned by the school boards, rather than the City. It will be a major expense for the City to purchase the buildings and purchase the school yards. There is a risk that mature neighbourhoods could lose a significant portion of their park through the sale of the school yard. This has happened in Westwood. Their school yard was sold and rezoned for seniors housing. Westwood now has no playfields. The fate of numerous mature neighbourhood parks has yet to be decided. Mature neighbourhoods tend to have less park space than newer neighbourhoods. However, Parks Planning has recently informed EFCL that there is no minimum amount of park per area or capita. How will the fate of parks be decided?

More Community Consultation It is the mandate of EFCL to address issues that will affect future community leagues where there is none now to represent their long term interests. Thus EFCL should participate in the discussions shaping park policies for new neighbourhoods. It is also EFCLs role to address issues that impact the majority of Leagues, and it is EFCLs role to ensure that Community Leagues are consulted on issues that directly impact them. Clearly the repurposing of surplus school sites will impact a majority of Leagues. There are 500 school sites in Edmonton and only 284 (57%) of the sites have operating school buildings (Source: Joint Use Agreements Annual Report 2010/2011). Thus a significant portion of our neighbourhood park land consists of school sites with an uncertain future. Community Leagues, being stewards of their neighbourhood park, are major stakeholders in the decisions around neighbourhood parks. Thus community leagues, as well as the general public, should be consulted about the future of our public lands. This has not happened. EFCL worked with City Administration and others to develop a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the 2009 surplus school sites, but to the best of our knowledge the draft PIP was not approved by City Council. The planned public meetings and information sessions providing an analysis of park land requirements and reasons why the City does or does not need the sites for civic purposes have not occurred. The City sent letters to the Community Leagues with 2009 surplus school sites, letting them know that they can participate in the Request For Expression of Interest, which is geared to getting

feedback from people who are interested in developing on the site. EFCL followed up with a letter encouraging Leagues to participate. Given one months notice and given that Community Leagues are in no easy position to purchase land, it is not surprising that only two Leagues responded. Leagues want to be consulted. We have heard from some Leagues who have expressed a desire to: - Be part of a collaborative decision-making process regarding the use of the surplus school sites - Consult with community sports organizers and other park users to analyze the city-wide impact of removing school sites from the park inventory - Have the declaration of a surplus school site trigger the parkland change process and the creation of a new park plan. - Have input into the decision on the location of residential development within the park - Be given more time to plan the future of their neighbourhoods. (For instance, Blue Quill is asking for an ARP prior to the development of the school sites.) - For the 2006 surplus school parks, have the city re-introduce the municipal reserve status to their parks and rezone the land for parks - Have the Province reverse its Municipal Government Act exemptions which eliminated the public hearing requirements for rezoning the 2006 surplus school sites and their host parks. The Provincial Cabinet was asked by the City to eliminate public consultation in order for the City of Edmonton to respond immediately to an acute shortage of affordable housing. (See Nov 6, 2006 Special Meeting of Council) In five years only two of the 2006 sites have been developed. Leagues are arguing that there is no real housing emergency and no legitimate justification for circumventing the democratic process. EFCL will advocate for a meaningful community consultation process on behalf of all Leagues. This process would bring not only City goals into consideration, but also specific community goals. It would be an opportunity for the community to identify what would enhance their neighbourhood and an opportunity to make it happen.