Wedgewood Surplus School Site Update
- Sarah Hamilton
- Mar 4, 2024
- 5 min read
This past December, a proposed policy amendment for the City’s Developing Surplus School Sites Policy, C583, was brought to Executive Committee by City Administration.
The discussion and vote on the policy amendment was a difficult one; particularly for the Wedgewood community, most of whom felt that they were blindsided by a change that did not include any consultation. There was notable confusion from residents on what the change meant for the community, and I believe that a delay on the vote would have been invaluable for clarity and transparency.
The report presented to the Executive Committee is linked here, along with the following attachments: Attachment 1: Policy; Attachment 2: Individual Site Status; Attachment 3: Current Affordability Ratios; Attachment 4: What We Heard Report; and Attachment 5: Policy Chart.
A recording of the committee meeting can be found here.
Despite my opposition, the policy amendment was passed by a Council majority, and I committed to following up with the community to provide additional information and clarity on the process going forward.
That lack of clarity and transparency regarding development on this site has been a long-term issue for the Wedgewood community, and I hear and understand the frustrations of residents. Having this process take so long with so little information has not been helpful, nor has it served the community well. From your viewpoint, this piece of land is a well-utilized green space, and has always appeared that way, regardless of the zoning designation on paper.
I’ve been fairly blunt in sharing my belief that the lack of information for communities with surplus school sites has been a failure of City policy regarding how we manage these sites. The time taken by school boards to decide on their own utilization of this land is far too lengthy, leading to these spaces becoming part of the communities in their undeveloped form, and a sense of mistrust and betrayal when communities learn decades later that they are actually intended for development.
There are far better and more effective methods of managing surplus school sites — including great examples from neighbouring municipalities — and correcting this is something I have been actively working towards in my time on Council.
On February 8, 2024, a virtual townhall was held by the Wedgewood Ravine Homeowners Association, with representation from my office, City Administration, the Wedgewood Ravine Community League, and the Wedgewood Park Committee.
I teamed up with a representative from City Administration — Kyle Payne, the Principal Planner responsible for managing the Wedgewood surplus site going forward — to present the history of the site, what the next steps will be, and to answer the questions and concerns directly from community members.
For those who were not able to attend, a recording of the townhall can be found here. An information sheet on the presentation content can also be downloaded by clicking on the box below.
There is a general understanding within the community of how this parcel of land has progressed; beginning first as a potential school site, then a potential low-income seniors development, and now a potential medium-density residential development with an affordable housing component.
What has been much less clear for residents is how these changes came about, what effect community engagement has had on the process, if any at all, and what these changes actually entail.
The potential school site and remainder of the park site would have been dedicated when the neighbourhood was originally subdivided for development in the late 1980s. No further change occurred until 2009, when a number of potential school sites across the city were declared surplus by the school board; in other words, they formally advised the City that they did not plan to build schools on these sites at any point in the future.
As outlined in the Municipal Government Act, the sites were then transferred to the municipality. The amount of land available to the City for affordable housing is limited, and these seventeen surplus sites were identified at that time as potential development locations. In 2012, eight of the surplus school sites were further specified as ideal locations for low-income seniors housing, and were consequently rezoned as RA7, or medium-density residential (otherwise known as RM16 in the new Zoning Bylaw).
Over the next decade, varying levels of community engagement were undertaken by the City, Council directed the physical footprint of the site to shift, a formal policy on surplus site development was created, Neighbourhood Structure Plans in a number of mature communities were repealed, and interest in the Wedgewood site from seniors housing providers was virtually non-existent.
From the standpoint of the community, this was a time where significant opposition to development was raised by residents, various options and ideas for beneficial ancillary uses were floated, but there appeared to be zero progression on development and the site remained as visible park space.
As a result of the lack of cohesion between the community and the City, when the surplus site policy amendment came forward in December, it was clear that many residents were entirely unaware that the site had not only been identified as a location for affordable housing as far back as 2009, but that it had also been rezoned as medium-density residential for over a decade. The result was a high level of misunderstanding and mistrust around the intentions of the policy amendment and what City Administration hoped to achieve.
To be very clear, the impetus for the policy amendment was primarily that it no longer aligned with provincial legislation or the City’s regulatory framework; two major issues that broadly affected all surplus site development in Edmonton and were not specific to Wedgewood.
City Administration also included measures to relax the high threshold for affordable housing inclusion, from a required 50-75% of units, to no required minimum, allowing the housing market to determine what each specific development and neighbourhood could reasonably accommodate.
I don’t think there’s a really good answer for how we got here, but I can commit to better communication going forward, both from my office and City Administration. For their part, the City team responsible for the site has expressed their intention to begin work directly with the community as soon as possible and to ensure any further action will not be decades-in-the-making.
So what's next for the Wedgewood surplus site?
To start, City Administration is currently in the process of reviewing existing site conditions and determining which technical requirements still need to be met for residential site development to proceed. Once there is a better understanding of any site constraints, Administration will be approaching the community to discuss the 2015 motion shifting the site northeast. The plan is to have both items completed by end of spring 2024.
After discussions are held with the community, either a rezoning application will be submitted to City Council, or City Administration will be returning to Council to ask that the 2015 motion be repealed.
In the event that a rezoning is required, there will be further community engagement to support the rezoning application, and an opportunity for members of the public to speak to City Council. It’s important to note that the rezoning decision before Council would be a simple location change, and not an opportunity to downgrade the zoning.
Following any Council decisions, City Administration would then prepare the land for sale, including removal of the Municipal Reserve designation and an additional touch point with the Council Executive Committee. If the land is sold and a developer is selected for the site, the developer is required by City bylaw to engage with the community.
I know that a number of questions and concerns from Wedgewood residents remain following the townhall. I've done my best to address some of them below, and you are always welcome to connect with my office, City Administration, or Wedgewood Ravine community groups directly.
— Sarah
Is low income housing the same as affordable housing?
Affordable housing can mean a lot of different things and it's important to clarify what it means in context of the Wedgewood site. The City is not considering any kind of social or supportive housing for the site. Affordable rentals, affordable homeownership, market rentals, and market homeownership, or any blend of those combinations, will be considered.
This development would be what is referred to as a mixed-market approach — a majority of market rate units that are there to support a smaller number of affordable housing units. Depending on the developer and the development, it could be as low as 5% of units. The previous threshold of 50-75% of the units was not realistic.
As this happened and moved forward in Cameron Heights, has there been any analysis into the drop in home prices or longer days on market there?
To provide some additional clarity, the multifamily development in Cameron Heights was not a school surplus site, but a planned medium-density development zoned appropriately since the inception of the community.
Regarding market value, the literature doesn’t support a consequential drop as a result of these types of developments — see linked sources below.
How Affordable Housing Makes Communities Wealthier | April 2022, Urban Institute
Why do you feel that this is a nonstarter or such a low probability?
There may have been a lack of clarity on my part regarding what I believe to be a hindrance to this development. The previous high requirement of 50-75% affordable units was definitely not feasible, and that was clearly demonstrated through the lack of interest from developers, seniors housing or otherwise. With the removal of the minimum requirement and increased flexibility of use options, I think it's reasonable to expect greater interest in the site.
Where would the entrance be to this housing unit?
At present, there are no proposed physical plans for the development.
Ms. Hamilton, which way would you vote — to keep the park or for new development?
The vote happened in 2012 and I do not have enough information to speculate on how I would have voted at the time. That being said, I have been very clear that I’m not happy with surplus sites languishing for decades; when this happens it is reasonable for a neighbourhood to assume it would remain parkland, even when that is not always the case. I believe that the practices used in other municipalities, which allows Municipal Reserve to be dealt with efficiently, may be a better practice.
I share the concerns about the site constraints especially given the change in use, but I also know that the technical analysis may allay some of those concerns. I am generally supportive of different types of housing being made available in communities to increase optionality for both current and future residents.
What do you mean by technical requirements?
Technical requirements would include all the infrastructure required to make the site developable. This may include drainage, sewer, potable water, and/or road upgrades. City Administration will need to review these requirements as part of the development of the site either as part of the rezoning, subdivision, or development permitting.
Why is ‘no development’ not an option on the table?
In line with the direction given from previous and current City Councils, the site has been clearly identified for development. The proposal from 2015 to shift the site is still open for discussion to ensure it fits appropriately within the current park space.
Based on the support that Council has shown for affordable housing developments, a motion put forward to exempt Wedgewood from the surplus site policy would be a motion I would expect to lose 12-1. Council’s direction has been to build up housing where we have space to build up housing. And while I know that this has always been a visible park space, I believe that is a failure of City policy; we need to not let the school board hang onto these parcels of land as long as they do.
In short, there was always a structure intended for this land. But what that structure was — whether it was a school or housing — has changed over the years.
Why is there even a push for development? Especially in complete opposition from the community.
I don’t think that there’s a really good answer here, further than to emphasize that the decision to develop these sites was made over a decade ago. There isn’t a petitioning process on this.
Consecutive Councils have directed City Administration to pursue affordable housing in all communities, and there are limited opportunities for the City to find and select sites for affordable housing. In regards to Wedgewood specifically, the threshold for not developing this site is incredibly high because the development plan conforms with the zoning that exists on the site today and the City’s policies on housing development.
I will share that it is extremely common for mature neighbourhoods to resist any kind of multifamily housing developments, but there was always going to be a structure on this site and the fact that it wasn’t a school, and the fact that it's taken this long, I consider a failure of City policy.
What is the land valued at?
It is unknown what the current market value is. City Administration will obtain an appraisal to determine the market value as part of the sales process.
Is the City currently accepting developer bids on this site?
Not at this time; there are a number of actions that need to take place before that point.
Will you respond to [the Park Advocacy group]'s statement that this proposal conflicts with provincial policy?
There are no restrictions in the Municipal Government Act that prevent rezoning land designated as Municipal Reserve; reserve designation and zoning designation are independent of each other. Removal of the MR designation prior to sale is a common procedure for City-owned land.
Why doesn't the City purchase said buildings and build affordable housing on land that is already developed versus taking green space away from our communities children?
Over the past few years, the City has built affordable housing in both existing buildings and at previously developed sites. I would say that is not an “either-or” policy, but “yes-and” policy.
What is the motive behind using a green space that has a huge traffic for families? Why choose this green space in a place like Edmonton wherein there is no dearth of space for building housing complexes?
Unfortunately, there are limited opportunities for the City to find and select sites for affordable housing.
Sarah, why aren’t you fighting for us? You’ve been bombarded by Wedgewood residents and residents from surrounding areas showing how negatively this would impact us.
I will fight for Wedgewood, and any community I represent, but I need to also be honest and realistic about the options available to all of us. I think there is a misunderstanding on what there is to fight here; there is no available petitioning process and, as I shared above, both current and previous Council’s explicit direction has been to build up housing wherever we have space to build it. A motion to exempt the Wedgewood site or to downzone the land would almost certainly fail based on the support my colleagues have shown for affordable housing developments.
Beyond property taxes, if property values go down what happens to the residents that have mortgages based on purchase price, not market price? Will they be compensated?
As answered above, the literature doesn’t support a consequential drop in purchase price as a result of these types of developments. That being said, if it is enough of a concern for the community, the HOA and individual residents may wish to undertake an independent analysis from a third-party assessor for your own records. It is also entirely within your rights to talk to legal representation in regards to that assessment.
Does preservation not mean anything to the City?
The City has an Open Space Policy based on ensuring appropriate allocation of green space across the city. What’s particularly informative is that the Wedgewood surplus site has not been factored into the neighbourhood’s allocation in that plan because it is not, and was never intended to be, a green space. Despite that, Wedgewood remains well above the targets for green space allocation.
When will the traffic assessment be done and shared?
City Administration is in the process of determining the technical requirements to develop the site. Whether or not the site remains in its current location or if it is shifted northward will need to be determined first.
Would new residents moving into this proposed development have to pay the same HOA dues that everyone else does? Would the developer have to conform to the HOA guidelines?
HOAs exist under the Societies Act and they operate as a third-party that the City does not have a stake in. In other words, the City cannot force a buyer to conform to HOA standards or to pay into HOA dues.
That being said, when the site is listed, all potential buyers would be notified of the existence of the HOA and City Administration will be actively encouraging any builders to work directly with the community, exploring options for contributions.
There is an analogous situation at present in Ogilvie Ridge that both my office and City Administration are following closely.
In the "What We Heard" report, the consultant found that the affordability requirements stipulated in the policy could not be met at three sites, including Wedgewood Heights. When the City report concludes it is not feasible, why are we choosing to continue? Is the City going to commission another analysis in order to get their desired answer?
With the policy amendment that passed in December, the strict requirement of 50-75% affordable units that was deemed unfeasible was removed. And while these developments will still have a proportion of affordable units, there is no minimum; it will be left to the housing market to decide what it can bear.
Can the traffic impact assessment be done in the summer? The street by the park is often completely filled with vehicles from the months of May to September. A traffic impact assessment will be inaccurate in February or another winter month.
City Adminstration is currently working through the technical requirements for the site and they will be working with professional transportation engineers and internal City departments to determine the requirements at either the rezoning, subdivsion or development permitting stages. It is important to note that a traffic impact assessment is different than a parking impact assessment.
How big is the Oleksiw site and how large is their surplus school site?
The surplus building site at Oleksiw is 1.46 ha within 8.5 ha of open space. For reference, the Wedgewood surplus site is 1.13 ha within 4.46 ha of open space (including the dry pond area).
Is this development being forced through under the guise of affordable housing while having little impact on supplying that housing type?
Council has set the target of 16% affordable housing in every neighbourhood and I agree that this single site isn’t going to get you anywhere close to that target; Wedgewood is already 99% built out.
What it will do is create optionality for people, including the ability for current residents to downsize without needing to leave the neighbourhood, or for young families — including your own children and grandchildren — to have access to the neighbourhood.
Why was the surplus school site not offered to the community for purchase when it was declared surplus?
The process for surplus school sites as outlined in the Municipal Government Act directs these sites to be transferred to the municipality for use before they can be made available on the market.
For the higher tax bracket here in Wedgewood, how does it apply to affordable housing, and how is it fair and equitable to us?
I know that it can feel like these changes have been hyper focused on your community; a lot of communities with surplus school sites feel this way. Your tax assessments are based on market value and the literature has shown that there isn’t an impact on that value with the introduction of developments such as this one. That being said, if you ever feel that you’re being assessed too high, your assessment can always be challenged.
Regarding levels of taxation, what has been driving the continued increases is that we’ve spread ourselves too far. The traditional method of outward sprawl is unsustainable in terms of the cost to run services to low density areas, and that cost is ultimately passed along to taxpayers. We are expecting the population of Edmonton to continue to increase, and if we don’t want to continue to increase taxation to support that, development and additional density needs to happen within our current footprint.
The Oleskiw school site, despite having twice the space of ours, has been halted by public opposition. Why is Wedgewood being treated so poorly?
While Oleskiw is also a surplus school site, it’s not an analogous situation to Wedgewood; it has not been zoned yet and is a proposed full market value development, not one that includes any affordable housing requirements or is part of a housing program. And while I don’t have the full details behind the pause, I can confirm that it is to complete technical studies for the site — specifically transportation and environmental studies — and not due to community opposition.
What is right for our neighbourhood? What do we need in our neighbourhood as citizens? As Councillor Hamilton mentioned, there will be a structure on the site, so should we be thinking about how to influence what that might be?
Going back to the ancillary uses, it has been made clear to me that the community would like to see some sort of a gathering space for residents. My hope would be that if development on the site were to proceed, that you are already thinking about what the needs of your community are, and that you and your neighbours are able to have a constructive conversation about engaging any future developer to ensure whatever ancillary uses may be built suits the needs of the people that live there.
Why was a policy change undertaken without community consultation?
This is best answered above due to the extensive site history, but, to be brief, the policy change did not have much of an impact on the status of the Wedgewood site.
What opportunities will the community have to provide input on any development?
City Administration will be reaching out right away to connect with the community on site location in relation to the 2015 motion shifting the footprint northward. There will also be opportunities to engage directly with Council when the land is brought forward for either rezoning or a repeal of the 2015 motion. To be clear, the rezoning decision before Council will be based on the footprint shift and there will be no option to downzone the land. If the land is sold and a developer is selected, they will be required to engage with the community directly.
Could we get a list of all Council discussions and relevant committee hearing notes on this particular site?
My office is currently working on this request and will provide it to the community once complete.
Komentar