DISTRICT FACILITIES PLAN 2010 UPDATEroyalbay.sd62.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/10/MatrixUpd… · 5.1 Utilization Analysis for Emerging Plans 30 5.2 Emerging Plan for the

DISTRICT FACILITIES PLAN

2010 UPDATESOOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT

February 2011

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Milne and Belmont Zones 4 1.2 Previous Studies and Planning Activities 5 1.3 First Person Plural 5 1.4 Key Participants 6

2. EXISTING SITUATION 2.1 Community Context 10 2.2 School Capacities 10 2.3 Physical Condition of School Facilities 12

3. NEEDS ANALYSIS 3.1 Population Forecast 15 3.2 Approach to Enrolment Forecasts 16 3.3 Future Residential Development 17 3.4 Yield Factors 19 3.5 Enrolment Forecasts for Each School 21 3.6 Overall Enrolment Forecasts 22 3.7 Long-term Enrolment Prospects 24

4. BASELINE CAPACITY UTILIZATION 4.1 Introduction to Capacity Utilization 25 4.2 Status Quo Utilization Analysis 25 4.3 Baseline Capacity Utilization Analysis 26 4.4 Belmont Zone with No New Secondary Schools 28

5. EMERGING FACILITIES PLANS 5.1 Utilization Analysis for Emerging Plans 30 5.2 Emerging Plan for the Milne Zone 31 5.3 Emerging Plan for the Belmont Zone 34 5.4 Summary of Major Projects 38 5.5 Implementation Considerations 39

APPENDICES A Future Capacities of SSD Schools

B Analysis of SSD Elementary School Capacities

C Planning Data for SSD School Facilities

D Residential Development Activity in SSD

E Detailed Estimates of Residential Development

F Enrolment Forecasts for Each SSD School

G Summary of Selected Enrolment Forecasts

H Capacity Utilization Profiles for SSD Schools

REPORT DATA Report: District Facilities Plan, 2010 Update, Sooke School District

Matrix project number: 1098

Client: School District 62 (Sooke)

Date: 2011 02 15

Matrix Planning Associates Unit GA6, 379 Tyee Road, Dockside Green Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V9A 0B4 Telephone: 250-598-9912 Website: matrixplanning.bc.ca

Subconsultants: Arlington Group Planning and Architecture Vancouver, British Columbia

District Facilities Plan, 2010 Update, Sooke School District, February 2011 1

SUMMARY District Profile

The Sooke School District (SSD) is a rapidly growing part of the Capital Regional District (CRD) comprising Langford, Colwood, Sooke, Metchosin, Highlands and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. BC Statistics (BCS) estimates that SSD’s school age population will grow by 53% in the 25 years from 2011 to 2036. Over the past several years, Langford and Colwood have accounted for much of the growth in the CRD. More recently, some growth has shifted westward to Sooke.

SSD schools are organized into two zones:

® The Belmont zone with twelve K-6 elementary schools, a K-9 school, two senior middle schools (Grades 7-9) and Belmont (Grades 10-12).

® The Milne zone with five K-5 elementary schools, a junior middle school (Grades 6-8) and Edward Milne (Grades 9-12).

Key Project Parameters

We developed this district facilities plan update based on the following two key parameters:

® Schools in the Belmont zone will be converted to a junior middle school grade configuration (K-5, 6-8, 9-12). A few years ago, the SSD Board resolved to move the Belmont zone to a junior middle school model to match the configuration in the Milne zone.

® The proposed two new secondary schools (the new Westshore Secondary at Royal Bay and the Belmont replacement on the site of the former Glen Lake Elementary) will be implemented as proposed. SSD owns the sites, but the projects have yet to receive Ministry of Education (MoE) approval.

Capacities

We calculated that SSD schools would have a total K-12 operational capacity of 9,493 spaces after taking into account the following:

The addition of the proposed two new secondary schools to replace Belmont Secondary.

The inclusion of kindergarten space in keeping with the transition to full day kindergarten (FDK).

The planned expansion of several elementary schools with permanent additions and the installation of modular classrooms in response to the introduction of FDK.

Subtraction of space occupied by StrongStart programs in several elementary schools.

The operational capacity was based on the average classroom occupancies of 25 for Grades 4-12, 21 for Grades 1-3, and 19 for kindergarten.


Enrolment Forecasts

Our approach to enrolment forecasts for SSD schools began with the excellent base 15-year projection provided by Baragar Demographics. Next, we prepared alternative forecasts for most schools based on estimates of the number and type of future housing expected for each school catchment. We obtained the estimates of future housing in consultation with local government planners. Finally, we chose the best enrolment forecast for each school.

We consider the housing estimates to be a balanced view of the prospects for future residential development — neither optimistic nor pessimistic. For example, we have shown very modest levels of future residential development for both Royal Bay and Skirt Mountain. It is likely that both of these areas will be implemented sometime over the next 15 years. The uncertainties associated with these two large residential developments reinforce an overall theme for SSD — growth expectations are in constant flux and need to be carefully monitored in terms of the implications for school enrolment.

Overall, we estimated the K-12 enrolment in regular SSD schools will grow by 55% from 8,221 in 2009 to 12,702 in 2024 — an average of nearly 300 additional students annually. The growth is most pronounced from about 2015 to 2021. The elementary grades lead the growth in enrolment, followed by the middle and, finally, secondary grades:

® Elementary enrolment is expected to grow steadily for the next ten years and taper off slightly towards the end of the 15-year planning horizon.

® Middle school enrolment is expected to be flat for a few years and then increase to the end of our planning horizon.

® Secondary enrolment is expected to be flat the next several years before increasing during the last few years of the planning horizon.

Based on BCS population projections, enrolment in SSD schools is likely to continue to grow in the decade after 2024, possibly at a reduced rate compared with the decade preceding 2024. Enrolment at SSD schools likely will exceed 14,000 by 2034.

Capacity Utilization

Capacity utilization is determined by dividing K-12 enrolment by the operational capacity for each school. We assessed the capacities of SSD schools assuming the implementation of FDK as well as the proposed two new secondary schools. Our analysis showed that without any further intervention such as new schools, SSD schools would be operating at the following high capacity utilization levels:

Overall average of 102% in 2014 led by elementary schools at 107%.

Overall average of 122% in 2019 led by elementary schools at 127%.

Overall average of 142% in 2024 led by middle schools at 145%.

Without adding more space, there will be a shortage of approximately 3,400 spaces by 2024 based on an unrealistic expectation of 100% utilization. Of course, this level of overutilization will not be distributed evenly across all schools — some schools in high growth areas will be faced with even greater space shortages.


Making the transition to a consistent junior middle grade configuration will reduce the pressure on elementary schools and increase the overutilization of secondary schools in the Belmont Zone.

Emerging Facilities Plans

To respond to the anticipated shortage of space, our plan calls for the construction of an estimated 4,775 spaces over the next decade.

The emerging plan for the Milne Zone incorporates the following key components:

Expand Edward Milne Secondary by 350 spaces.

Replace Sooke Elementary with a new K-8 school of 600 spaces.

Build a new 300-space elementary school on a site in the Sunriver residential development.

Replace John Muir Elementary with a new 325-space school.

The facilities plan emerging for the Belmont Zone incorporates the following key components:

Implement the proposed two new secondary schools (new 800-space Westshore and 1,100-space Belmont replacement) as proposed.

Convert all schools in the Belmont Zone to a junior middle school grade configuration.

Expand the new Westshore Secondary by 300 spaces.

Build a new North Langford K-8 school of 1,050 spaces that would include a replacement for Millstream Elementary.

Build a new 400-space elementary school on a site in the Westhills residential development.

Replace Sangster Elementary with a new 400-space school, replace Dunsmuir Middle with a new 600-space school, or consider building a combined K-8 school of 1,000 spaces.

In the longer term, build a new 400-space elementary school on the Echo Valley.

In addition to these new construction projects, there are several other SSD schools that will need to be modernized over the next several years. All combined, this is a very large building program. The most significant risk facing SSD in relation to the proposed building plan is the uncertainty of funding approval from MoE. Another key potential impediment is the challenge of finding and securing appropriate properties for the project requiring new sites.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 MILNE AND BELMONT ZONES As illustrated in Figure 1, the Sooke School District (SSD) is organized into two zones:

® The Milne Zone has five K-5 elementary schools, a junior middle school (Journey serves Grades 6-8) and Edward Milne Secondary (Grades 9-12).

® The Belmont Zone has twelve K-6 elementary schools, a K-9 school (John Stubbs), two senior middle schools (Grades 7-9) and Belmont Secondary (Grades 10-12).

Figure 1: Flow of Students in SSD Schools

Figure 2 at the end of this section shows the two zones as well as the location of SSD schools. It also illustrates that SSD comprises six local government entities — Colwood, Langford, Highlands, Metchosin, Sooke and the Juan de Fuca Electoral


Area (including East Sooke and Port Renfrew). The Belmont Zone consists of Colwood, Langford, Highlands and Metchosin that collectively are known as the Westshore.

Figures 3 and 4 focus on the schools and key features of the Milne and Belmont zones. In addition to existing major roads, Figure 4 indicates some of the planned road improvements in the Langford area.

The proposed school sites shown in Figures 2-4 as purple diamonds are discussed later in the report.

1.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES In May 2007, we completed the 2007 Update to the Long-Range Facilities Plan that was completed in 2005. The Arlington Group prepared an update to the plan for the Milne Zone in February 2009. This document is another update to the long-range district facilities plan for SSD.

A key result of the 2005 study was that the SSD Board resolved to move the Belmont zone to a junior middle school model to harmonize with the existing grade configuration in the Milne zone. The transition to a junior middle grade configuration led to a requirement for two secondary schools in the Belmont Zone (these projects also will provide much needed additional capacity and upgrade SSD’s secondary facilities).

Based on several planning studies, SSD has proposed two new secondary schools to replace the existing Belmont Secondary:

New Westshore Secondary An 800-space school to be built on land reserved as part of the Royal Bay development. The school is proposed with core functions sized for 1,100 spaces and a site with additional expansion capacity. The Royal Bay site has been purchased but the project has yet to receive MoE approval.

Belmont Secondary Replacement An 1,100-space school to be built on the site of the former Glen Lake Elementary. The business case for this project was based, in part, on proceeds from the sale of the existing Belmont Secondary property. Glen Lake Elementary has been closed and the site is ready for the new school, but the project has yet to receive MoE approval.

As with previous facilities plans for SSD, we developed this update based on the following key parameters:

® Schools in the Belmont Zone will be converted to a junior middle school grade configuration.

® The proposed two new secondary schools (new Westshore and Belmont replacement) will be implemented as proposed.

1.3 FIRST PERSON PLURAL This report is written in the first person plural. The ‘we’ refers to Matrix Planning Associates. We adopted this style primarily because it results in clearer and more comprehensible language than the more traditional, passive voice used in most consulting reports.


1.4 KEY PARTICIPANTS Our Steering Committee comprised the following school district personnel:

® Jim Cambridge, Superintendent.

® Dave Lockyer, Secretary Treasurer.

® Pete Godau, Manager of Facilities.

® Ron Warder, Assistant Superintendent.

Ken Hunt of Keta Consulting provided information on school capacities and conducted some of the enrolment forecasts.

We reviewed the highlights of the 2010 Update with the SSD Board as part of the process of reviewing the draft of this report.

SD 61

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km

13

16

4

2

1723

22

14

8

5

1

21

9

10

20

67

1218

3

19

2627

24

2829

30

11

25

31

LANGFORD

COLWOOD

VIEWROYAL

HIGHLANDS

METCHOSIN

SAANICH

Figure 2

Project 1098

SSD Schools

2011-02-14

School District 62

SD 63

SD 61

Port Renfrew

SD 79

0 5 10 15 20 25 km

Enlargement Below

Belmont SecondaryColwood ElementaryCrystal View ElementaryDavid Cameron ElementaryDunsmuir MiddlePoirier ElementaryEdward Milne SecondaryHans Helegsen ElementaryHappy Valley ElementaryJohn Muir ElementaryJohn Stubbs Elementary/MiddleJourney MiddleLakewood ElementaryMillstream ElementaryPort Renfrew ElementaryRuth King ElementarySangster ElementarySaseenos ElementarySavory ElementarySooke ElementarySpencer MiddleWillway ElementaryWishart ElementaryProposed Belmont Replacement SiteMetchosin Elementary SiteLatoria Road SiteProposed Westshore Secondary SiteEcho Valley Elementary SiteNorth Langford K-8 SiteSunriver SiteRoyal Bay Elementary Site

1

19

20

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

21

23

22

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Matrix Job #1098

31

SUNRIVER

10

20

67

1218

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km

Poirier ElementaryEdward Milne SecondaryJohn Muir ElementaryJourney MiddleSaseenos ElementarySooke ElementarySunriver Site

20

6

7

10

12

18

30

Matrix Job #1098

Figure 3

Project 1098

Milne Zone

2011-02-14

SD 61

ROYALBAY

OLYMPICVIEW

BEARMOUNTAIN

WESTHILLS

13

16

4

2

1723

22

14

5

1

21

9

3

19

26

27

24

2829

11

31

LANGFORD

COLWOOD

VIEWROYAL

0 1 2 3 4 5 KmFigure 4

Project 1098

ZoneBelmont

2011-02-14

Belmont SecondaryColwood ElementaryCrystal View ElementaryDavid Cameron ElementaryDunsmuir MiddleHappy Valley ElementaryJohn Stubbs Elementary/MiddleLakewood ElementaryMillstream ElementaryRuth King Elementary

1

2

3

4

5

9

11

13

14

16

Sangster ElementarySavory ElementarySpencer MiddleWillway ElementaryWishart ElementaryProposed Belmont Replacement SiteLatoria Road SiteProposed Westshore Secondary SiteEcho Valley Elementary SiteNorth Langford K-8 SiteRoyal Bay Elementary Site

19

17

21

23

22

26

28

24

27

29

31


2. EXISTING SITUATION

2.1 COMMUNITY CONTEXT SSD is part of the Capital Regional District (CRD). It is a highly dynamic area that has grown by more than 50% over the past 20 years and has the capacity to continue to grow well into the future. Over the past several years, Langford and Colwood have absorbed much of the growth in the CRD. More recently, some of the growth has shifted westward to Sooke.

SSD has an estimated population of just over 68,000, allocated into its constituent local governments approximately as follows:

City of Colwood 16,500

City of Langford 28,000

District of Highlands 2,200

District of Metchosin 5,200

District of Sooke 10,600

Juan de Fuca Electoral Area 5,500

As illustrated in Figure 2, SSD is bounded by School District 79 (Cowichan Valley) to the north, School District 63 (Saanich) to the northeast, and School District 61 (Greater Victoria) to the east.

2.2 SCHOOL CAPACITIES Traditionally, the ‘nominal’ capacities of BC schools were established based on classroom capacities of 25 students for Grades 1-12 and did not include kindergarten. Kindergarten was excluded because it was a separate program that most students attended for half days and there was no overlap between kindergarten and elementary students. This has changed with the introduction of full day kindergarten (FDK). With FDK, kindergarten students will attend all day and it will be possible for kindergarten students to share a classroom with students in elementary grades (typically, Grade 1). As a result, we have included kindergarten spaces when determining the capacities of SSD elementary schools.

Figure 5 summarizes the analysis of future capacities of SSD schools that is presented in Appendix A. Both Figure 5 and Appendix A show the existing reported nominal capacities as well as the future nominal and operational capacities for SSD schools. We provide detailed notes in Appendix A, but the following are some highlights of the analysis:

The reported nominal capacity is the nominal capacities of SSD schools as established in a review by Keta Consulting, who compared the area allocations of existing schools to the areas allowed for schools by MoE. The existing capacity includes Belmont Secondary.

The revised nominal capacity for K-12 adds 25 spaces to the nominal capacity of elementary schools for each kindergarten classroom. It also adds for currently planned expansions, including the addition of modular classrooms to accommodate the FDK transition. The future capacity includes the two new secondary schools.


The notes in Figure 5 highlight that we have deducted the classroom occupied in each of five elementary schools with the StrongStart Program. We have also deducted for the space occupied by the Resource Program at David Cameron Elementary.

The operational capacity for K-12 shows the effective capacity of the schools assuming the stated future grade span using the following average class sizes to the classrooms: 25 for Grades 4-12, 21 for Grades 1-3 and 19 for kindergarten.

Since the full capacity of the John Stubbs Memorial School is included in the subtotals for both elementary and middle schools, adding the subtotals does not equal the total capacity.

We revised the capacity calculations for the elementary schools by comparing the actual areas that would be provided after the transition to FDK and the implementation of the planned expansions with the areas allowed by MoE. These analyses are presented in Appendix B.

Neighbourhoods of Learning

MoE has introduced the ‘Neighbourhoods of Learning’ (NoL) program to encourage appropriate community programs to occupy school buildings. To date, MoE has focused on the addition of NoL space to new school buildings. SSD has benefited from this program with the addition of community space to the new Happy Valley Elementary. However, except for the StrongStart and Resource Programs mentioned, we have not deducted non-school functions occupying school space in the absence of definitive direction from MoE regarding what functions would be considered legitimate NoL programs and eligible to be deducted from the operational capacity of schools. When direction is clarified, it is likely that at least some of the non-school functions identified would be eligible and lead to reductions in the effective capacities of several SSD elementary schools.

Optimal Capacity Ranges

For both educational and operational considerations, SSD would prefer to have schools within the following optimal capacity ranges:

Secondary schools of 900-1,200 spaces — four grades at 225-300 spaces for each grade.

Middle schools of 450-600 spaces — three grades at 150-200 spaces for each grade.

Elementary schools of 300-450 spaces (nominal capacity for Kindergarten to Grade 5) — six grades at 50-75 spaces for each grade.


Figure 5: Existing and Future School Capacities

2.3 PHYSICAL CONDITION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES MoE is currently undertaking physical condition assessments of all school facilities in BC as part of its capital asset management program. The results of this comprehensive survey will not be available for SSD schools until 2012.

Figure 6 summarizes the building condition information presented as part of a more comprehensive set of information about SSD school facilities in Appendix C.


Figure 6: Summary of Building Condition

The building condition ratings presented in Figure 6 characterizes the condition of each SSD school facility in terms of the need to invest in upgrading or replacement over the next several years. The goal is to make the necessary investments to bring all schools to modern standards of health, safety, energy efficiency and functionality. We have found that schools in most school districts can be organized into five groups according to building condition: excellent, good, adequate, deficient and poor.

The five schools rated as ‘excellent’ are new or nearly new and are not likely to require upgrading over the next several years. Similarly, the five schools characterized as being in ‘good’ condition are unlikely to require significant investment in upgrading or functional renovations beyond routine maintenance. The long-range facilities plan should consider these ten facilities as major assets and formulate a strategy that includes a long-term role for each school.

The four school facilities characterized as ‘adequate’ have considerable useful life remaining, but will require modernization. SSD can expect to invest in upgrading the schools over the next several years. Upgrades required for these facilities include the need for seismic remediation. In general, there would be no significant cost premium to retain the schools as part of the long-term plan.

The four schools rated as ‘deficient’ will require significant investment to address a range of deficiencies. It is likely that a detailed assessment would conclude


that it is more cost effective to renovate rather than replace these facilities. The long-range plan for SSD should take into account that major investments will need to be made, if these schools continue to be part of the preferred delivery model for SSD.

The five schools with ‘poor’ building condition ratings likely require replacement, although detailed technical assessments would be required to confirm this preliminary conclusion. SSD has already conducted such studies for Belmont Secondary and made plans to replace it with two new secondary schools. The emerging facilities plan outlined in this report proposes replacements for Sooke, Sangster and Millstream elementary schools.

Clearly, one of the key challenges to SSD will be to modernize or replace the nine schools rated as ‘deficient’ or ‘poor’.

Most of the information presented in Appendix C is self-explanatory except for the following:

® The column entitled ‘Utility as School Site’ is an assessment by SSD facilities personnel regarding how well the site meets the needs of the school — most school sites are adequate or good, but three were identified as poor (Lakewood, Millstream and Savory).

® The column entitled ‘Expandability on Site’ is an assessment by SSD facilities personnel of how readily the school could be physically expanded — six of the sites were rated poor.

® SSD officials indicated that all school sites are owned by SSD (‘SD’).

® The number of portable classrooms on each school site is as of January 2011.

® The ‘year built’ is when the main part of the school was completed.

® The three columns that summarize the seismic condition of SSD schools are from a 2004 study by Spar Industries that assessed schools constructed before 1984.

® The seismic risk of the schools was rated on a five-point scale as Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High or High.

® The cost to upgrade the seismic deficiencies of each school is presented — these costs have not been updated since the 2004 report.

® The overall audit score is based on a multi-faceted assessment that was conducted by all school district officials in 2000 and updated as part of this project — scores of less than 50% are in red.

Note that the Province is re-assessing its approach to the assessment of seismic risk for public buildings.


3. NEEDS ANALYSIS

3.1 POPULATION FORECAST Figure 7 presents the latest (PEOPLE 35) population forecast (the heavy red line) for SSD from BCS. It also shows the 2006 population forecast (PEOPLE 31) referenced in the 2007 Update of the Long-Range Facilities Plan. The latest forecast shows the communities comprising SSD growing more than before. BCS estimates that SSD population will increase by 54% in the 25 years from 2011 to 2036.

Figure 7: Total Population Forecast for SSD

Figure 8 indicates that the school age population will grow from now to the end of the forecast horizon. BCS estimates that the SSD school age population will grow by 53% in the 25 years from 2011 to 2036.

Figure 9 shows that the school aged population has been declining as a proportion of the total population, but that this decline is due to plateau and begin to increase over the next decade before decreasing again in 15-20 years. This is a similar pattern to the earlier BCS forecast, but with the increase beginning about five years earlier.

While the population forecasts generated by BCS provide a useful context for considering the longer term future, we believe that a more specific analysis of anticipated future residential development is a better way of estimating future enrolment in the highly dynamic context of Langford, Colwood, Sooke and other communities comprising SSD.

The key message from the BCS population forecast is that SSD enrolments are likely to grow significantly in the long-term. The picture provided by the BCS population forecast for the period from 2025 to 2036 is especially useful since our enrolment forecasts extend to 2024 only.

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

PEOPLE 31 (2006)

PEOPLE 35 (2010)


Figure 8: Forecast for Ages 5-17 Years in SSD

Figure 9: Ages 5-17 as a Proportion of Total Population

3.2 APPROACH TO ENROLMENT FORECASTS Our approach to enrolment forecasts for SSD schools began with the excellent base provided by Baragar Demographics. Baragar generates a 15-year enrolment forecast for each SSD school. The underlying population data for the Baragar forecasts come from a combination of birth registry and Family Allowance and Child Tax Benefit files. Net migration and birth rates are incorporated using historical averages. We developed our enrolment forecasts for each school using

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

PEOPLE 31 (2006)

PEOPLE 35 (2010)

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

PEOPLE 31 (2006)

PEOPLE 35 (2010)


the Baragar projection that was based on actual enrolments from September 2009.

Baragar refers to their estimate as being ‘without local knowledge’ since it does not incorporate specific input (including nearby housing developments) related to individual schools. We supplied the ‘local knowledge’ by learning about plans for future residential development in each local government within SSD. We identified where children from each housing development would attend school and modified the enrolment forecast for the affected schools.

We also modified the yield rates (number of students per new housing unit) based on information specific to SSD as well as other British Columbia school districts. Where knowledge was available, we adjusted the yield rate to reflect the target market for specific housing developments.

3.3 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As described in more detail in Appendix D, the Arlington Group found that:

® Sooke joins Langford and Colwood as the municipalities that will lead with continued growth into the future.

® Highlands, Metchosin and Juan de Fuca have limited potential, compared with much greater growth prospects in Langford, Colwood and Sooke.

® The nature of the development in Langford and Colwood will become slightly less family-oriented than in the past. Sooke will remain more affordable and, therefore, relatively more attractive to families.

® The focus of residential development in Langford will shift somewhat to north of the TransCanada Highway.

® There will remain considerable capacity for development — the key unknown is the speed of implementation.

® The nature and pace of three major developments (Bear Mountain, Royal Bay and Westhills) will be a key indicator of overall growth in the Westshore — note that the location of these key developments are shown in Figure 3.

In summary, the municipalities within SSD have the capacity to accommodate significant growth. Much of the future population growth in the CRD will occur in Langford, Colwood and Sooke. It is clear that there will be many more people living in SSD. It is less certain how fast the growth will occur.

We excluded highrise apartments from our list of projects for two reasons:

® The future of most highrise residential developments is uncertain.

® Even if the projects are implemented, there are likely to be very few school aged children living in highrise apartments.

We consider the housing estimates to be a balanced view of the prospects for future residential development — neither optimistic nor pessimistic. For example, we have shown very modest levels of future residential development for both Royal Bay and Skirt Mountain. It is likely that both of these areas will be implemented sometime over the next 15 years. The uncertainties associated with these two large residential developments


reinforce an overall theme for SSD — growth expectations are in constant flux and need to be carefully monitored in terms of the implications for school enrolment.

Appendix E lists all the current developments as of August 2010. It also indicates other likely housing activity over the 15-year time horizon of our enrolment forecasts. Figure 10 summarizes the detailed estimates of future residential development outlined in Appendix E and reinforces several points made earlier about development in SSD communities:

® More than half of the development will be in Langford.

® The large developments of Royal Bay, Olympic View, Bear Mountain, Westhills and Sunriver together comprise 38% of the total estimated housing units over the next 15 years.

® Less than 8% of estimated future housing is in Juan de Fuca, Metchosin and Highlands.

Figure 10: Summary of Estimated Future Housing Units

Our current estimate of 11,788 new residential units over the next 15 years is only slightly less than the 12,108 new residential units we estimated in the 2007 Update. However, our current estimate for Colwood and the low growth areas is less than previous, whereas our current estimates for Langford and, especially, Sooke are higher than in the 2007 Update.

Figure 11 compares the actual average number of residential units built annually over the past ten years with the estimated annual average. This chart illustrates that:

The future will look similar to the past.


There will be relatively more residential development in the future than in the recent past in Sooke and Colwood.

There will be relatively less residential development in the future than in the recent past in Langford and the low growth areas (‘other’).

Figure 11: Actual Past and Estimated Future Annual Average Housing Units

3.4 YIELD FACTORS Yield factors are the number of SSD students (K-12) that come from specific housing types. These yield factors do not include students at private schools.

Figure 12 presents the range of yield factors that we applied to the anticipated new housing to estimate the number of SSD students that will be generated from the planned new developments. We assigned the yield rates to the elementary schools with significant levels of new housing — these assigned rates are shown in heavy blue. The remainder of the yield rates shown in Figure 12 are calculated based on the estimated number of housing units for each housing type and catchment area.

We applied the following ranges of yield rates:

0.40 to 0.60 for single family developments.

0.30 to 0.40 for townhouse developments.

0.10 to 0.28 for apartment developments.

The yield rates we assigned were based on information from several sources, including the study of 13 specific existing housing areas in SSD using a Baragar tool called GeoSchool. Figure 13 summarizes the results of these tests.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Colwood past

Colwood future

Langford past

Langford future

Sooke past

Sooke future

Other past

Other future


Figure 12: Yield Rates Assigned and Calculated

Figure 13: Yield Rate Tests

Other sources of comparable yield rate data included a similar study of ten test areas outlined in Figure 11 of the 2007 Update. We also referenced similar


studies in other BC school districts as well as the default yield rates embedded in Baragar’s Demographic Dynamics. Finally, we examined the overall yield rates provided by MoE’s recent update to yield rates for school districts based on the 2006 Census. This analysis indicated that the overall yield rate for SSD in 2006 was 0.462.

Recognizing the inherent uncertainty associated with estimating the number of SSD students that will live in any given housing development, we assigned the yield rates shown in Figure 12 after considering as many relevant factors as possible. For example, we acknowledge a general downward trend in yield rates, especially for new housing where the relatively high prices may be a factor in that many young families cannot afford much of the new housing on the market. We also understand that the yield rates vary considerably from one development to another. For example, we used the higher rate for the family-oriented Sunriver Estates, but the lower rate for the more adult-oriented Bear Mountain.

3.5 ENROLMENT FORECASTS FOR EACH SCHOOL Charts of the enrolment forecasts for each school are presented in Appendix F. The charts illustrate the following alternative forecasts:

2007 — the selected best enrolment forecast from the 2007 Update to the Long-Range Facilities Plan (shown with a thinner purple line).

Base — the Baragar base forecast ‘without local knowledge’ (shown with a blue line).

House — where warranted, this is the forecast based on estimating the students coming from anticipated new housing (shown with a red line).

Best — for a few schools we adjusted the ‘House’ or ‘Base’ forecast in response to local knowledge about the situation in the specific catchment area (shown with an orange line).

The selected best forecast for each school is indicated with a heavier line and with circles at 2009 and 2024. The final table in Appendix F summarizes the selected best enrolment forecast for each school.

The enrolment forecasts are headcounts for fully funded K-12 students. They do not include international students.

In general, we selected the forecast that was the highest and usually the estimate based on future housing, with the following exceptions:

Hans Helgesen — we went with a forecast somewhat lower than the housing projection primarily because we were concerned that the yield rates in the area may be lower than estimated.

Happy Valley — we adopted the lower housing based forecast since we thought it was unlikely that the very high growth in the area over the last few years would be continued in the short and medium term.

Lakewood — we went with a forecast just higher than the housing based projection since we thought it was unlikely that the growth shown in the base forecast could be achieved in the Bear Mountain area.


Sangster — we adopted the lower housing based forecast since we thought it was unlikely that the relatively high growth in the area over the last few years would be sustained.

3.6 OVERALL ENROLMENT FORECASTS Figure 14 presents three forecasts:

® MoE 2009 — MoE’s latest forecast for SSD (shown with a thinner blue line).

® 2007 total — the forecast for SSD schools presented in the 2007 Update to the Long-Range Facilities Plan (shown with a thinner green line).

® Total — the sum of the selected best forecast for each SSD school as outlined in Appendix F (shown with a red line).

We have not included enrolment forecasts for Byte Alternative, Pacific Secondary, Westshore Centre or Distributed Learning.

Figure 14: Enrolment Forecast for SSD Schools

The revised enrolment forecast show the overall enrolment in SSD schools to increase every year over the 15 years of our planning horizon. Our estimate is parallel with MoE’s latest forecast and indicates more enrolment growth than we previously predicted in the 2007 Update. The forecast presented in Figure 14 indicates that enrolment in SSD schools will increase by 55% over the next 15 years — an average of nearly 300 additional students annually. The growth is most pronounced from about 2015 to 2021.

Figure 15 shows the forecast enrolment by level based on the current mixed grade configuration:

® Elementary with Stubbs — the sum of the selected best forecast for each SSD elementary school including all enrolment at John Stubbs Elementary-Middle (shown with a thicker red line).

8,221

12,702

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

2009 2014 2019 2024

MoE 2009

2007 total

Total


® MoE Elementary — MoE’s latest forecast for the elementary grades (shown with a thinner orange line).

® Middle with Stubbs — the sum of the selected best forecast for each SSD middle school including all enrolment at John Stubbs Elementary-Middle (shown with a thicker purple line).

® MoE Secondary — MoE’s latest forecast for the secondary grades (shown with a thinner light blue line).

® MoE Middle — MoE’s latest forecast for the middle grades (shown with a thinner light purple line).

® Secondary — the sum of the selected best forecast for SSD secondary schools (shown with a thicker blue line).

Figure 15: Enrolment Forecast by Level with Existing Grade Configuration

The enrolment forecasts are based on the continuation of the existing mixed grade configuration where the schools in the Belmont Zone maintaining the senior middle model. We address the impact of shifting to a consistent junior middle grade configuration later in the report.

In general, our forecasts parallel the MoE enrolment projections after discounting for the overlap due to ‘double-counting’ enrolment at John Stubbs Elementary-Middle. The elementary grades lead the growth in enrolment, followed by the middle and, finally, secondary grades:

® Elementary enrolment is expected to grow steady for the next ten years and taper off slightly towards the end of the planning horizon.

® Middle school enrolment is expected to be flat for a few years and then increase to the end of our planning horizon.

® Secondary enrolment is expected to be flat the next several years before increasing during the last few years of the planning horizon.

1,500

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

2009 2014 2019 2024

Elementary with Stubbs

MoE Elementary

Middle with Stubbs

MoE Secondary

MoE Middle

Secondary


3.7 LONG-TERM ENROLMENT PROSPECTS Our enrolment forecasts present reasonable estimates of SSD students over the next 15 years. Capital and operational planning for SSD schools should focus on this timeframe. Many things can change in the public education sphere over the next 15 years.

However, to provide a sense of the longer-term prospects for SSD schools, we turned to the population projections by BCS. Figure 16 shows the latest (PEOPLE 35) forecast of the number of school aged children living in SSD over the next 25 years (the blue line labeled ‘Ages 5-17’). BCS population projections are based on historic population data (the 2006 Census being the last solid point of reference) and various assumptions.

Figure 16: SSD Enrolment Beyond 2024

The BCS projection shows continuous increases in the school age population for the entire 25-year period. Figure 16 also repeats the best estimate of SSD school enrolment to 2024 (the thick red line) as shown previously in Figure 14. The difference between the blue and red lines (total of ages 5-17 compared with our enrolment forecasts for SSD schools) is because not all persons aged 5-17 attend SSD schools — home school, private school, drop outs and so on. The thin red line assumes that the ratio of SSD students to total number of persons aged 5-17 remains constant over final ten years of the forecast.

In broad terms, enrolment in SSD schools is likely to continue to grow in the decade after 2024, possibly at a reduced rate compared with the decade preceding 2024. It is likely that enrolment at SSD schools will exceed 14,000 by 2034.

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

15,000

17,000

2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034

SSD schools

Ages 5-17


4. BASELINE CAPACITY UTILIZATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO CAPACITY UTILIZATION Capacity utilization is determined by dividing enrolment by the operational capacity for each school. The result is expressed as a percentage. Traditionally, both enrolment and capacities are based on Grades 1-12 with kindergarten excluded. As mentioned earlier, we have modified this traditional approach to include kindergarten in both enrolment and capacity data.

Until recently, MoE capital budget instruction included guidelines for capacity utilization. School districts such as SSD were expected to maintain overall utilization levels of at least 95%, and higher levels were seen as prerequisites to obtaining approvals for proposed new schools. Partly due to the unknowns being introduced with the implementation of full day kindergarten, the current MoE requirements for capacity utilization thresholds appear more fluid. This 95% threshold is instructive as a target for long-range facilities planning. It is also meaningful as SSD defines capital project to meet the need for more space while, at the same time, maintaining underutilized middle and secondary schools.

Regardless of specific MoE requirements, it is important for SSD to maintain high utilization levels to reduce overall operating costs and advance the objective of having the best school facilities possible available for all students. As general guidelines, we would recommend that SSD strive to have:

Elementary schools operating at 90-95% — this slightly lower utilization level is to allow for the possibility of four year-olds being added to schools in the future as well the potential for additional NoL community services space (such as daycare) being deducted from capacity.

Middle and secondary schools operating at 95% or higher — many school administrators have found that senior schools, especially larger secondary schools, can operate satisfactorily with utilization levels that slightly exceed 100%.

4.2 STATUS QUO UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix H1 presents an analysis of capacity utilization without interventions such as new facilities (including the outstanding proposal to build two new secondary schools to replace Belmont), school consolidations or catchment area adjustments. This Status Quo utilization profile is based on the continuation of the existing grade configuration. It does, however, assume that FDK is fully adopted and the expansions and other adjustments to the capacities of SSD elementary schools have been implemented.

The operational capacities for SSD schools are as summarized in Figure 5. The enrolment numbers shown in Appendix H1 are our best estimates as outlined in Appendix F. Surplus capacities are shown in red when greater than 25 spaces (one class). Space shortages are shown in purple when greater than 25 spaces. Capacity utilization levels are shown in red when less than 90% and in


purple with more than 110%. These guidelines apply to all the capacity utilization profiles. The comments focus future utilization trends.

The analyses presented in Appendix H summarize capacity utilization for the district as a whole as well as several subtotals. We have subtracted Port Renfrew Elementary from some of the subtotals since, as an isolated school, it could be excluded from the calculation of capacity utilization for what is otherwise an essentially urban school district.

Overall, capacity utilization in SSD schools will exceed 100% very soon and will be at more than 140% by the end of the planning horizon. In terms of educational space capacity, SSD will be short nearly 2,000 spaces within ten years and more than 3,700 spaces the end of the planning horizon.

Although the absolute space shortfall will be greater in the Belmont Zone, the two zones are very similar in estimated future capacity utilization levels. Similarly, the anticipated space shortages will be proportionately similar for elementary, middle and secondary schools.

Clearly, the central challenge to SSD (and MoE) will be to provide the new and expanded school facilities necessary to meet the anticipated need for more educational spaces. The need for 3,700 more spaces translates into a requirement for a new 250-space elementary school every year for the next 15 years.

4.3 BASELINE CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix H2 presents an analysis of capacity utilization with the following changes to the Status Quo:

The grade configuration in the Belmont Zone is shifted to the desired junior middle model.

The two new secondary schools proposed to replace the existing Belmont Secondary have been approved and implemented — these schools are named ‘New Belmont’ for the replacement to be built on the site of the former Glen Lake Elementary and ‘Royal Bay’ for the school to be built on a site within the new Royal Bay development.

Catchment boundaries have been modified or other operational parameters have been changed to allow students to be shifted from some of the overutilized schools to nearby underutilized schools.

We have estimated that enrolment in secondary grades in the Belmont Zone will increase by at least 6% due to the ‘repatriation’ of students who currently attend secondary schools in adjacent school districts.

We have also added a column (‘Condition’) that repeats the building condition ratings summarized in Figure 6 with highlights on school facilities rated as ‘Deficient’ (purple ‘4’) or ‘Poor’ (red ‘5’) since these are facilities we would like to replace or significantly renovate.

The Baseline utilization profile presented in Appendix H2 begins with the first future year of our analysis (2014), since it is entirely future oriented and does not apply to the current year or even the next few years. In addition to


mentioning utilization trends, we comments on student shifts and general facilities needs in the notes.

Figures 17 and 18 summarize the capacity utilization of the Status Quo and Baseline analyses presented in Appendices H1 and H2. The utilization calculations exclude Port Renfrew Elementary. For consistency, Figures 17 and 18 concentrate on the longer-term future by beginning in 2014. The district and elementary utilization levels exclude Port Renfrew Elementary.

Figure 17: Status Quo Baseline Utilization Without Intervention

Figure 18: Junior Middle Baseline Utilization Without Intervention

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

2014 2019 2024

District

Secondary

Middle

Elementary

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

2014 2019 2024

District

Secondary

Middle

Elementary


Highlights of the status quo and baseline utilization analyses presented in Figures 17 and 18 include:

® All levels of schools are overutilized in 2014 (with the possible exception of middle schools) and become more severely overutilized in 2019 and 2024.

® The utilization levels for the overall district as well as elementary schools will be reduced as a result of building the two new secondary schools and transitioning to a consistent junior middle grade configuration.

® The shift to a consistent junior middle model.

Figure 19 expresses the baseline capacity utilization presented in Figure 18 in terms of the anticipated shortage of student spaces in SSD schools. It shows that there will be the need for approximately 3,500 additional spaces by 2024 and that there will be space shortages in all three levels. In fact, this chart understates the need for new space in at least two ways:

The shortages are calculated based on 100% utilization, whereas it is unrealistic and certainly undesirable to operate at anything over about 95% overall and less for elementary schools.

This does not take into account the need for replacement space due to deteriorating facilities.

Figure 19: Anticipated Future Space Shortages by Level

4.4 BELMONT ZONE WITH NO NEW SECONDARY SCHOOLS Appendix H3 presents a utilization profile for the schools in the Belmont Zone with the transition to the junior middle grade configuration, but without the proposed two new secondary schools. The analysis begins with 2010 and shows utilization snapshots in 2014 and 2019.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Total Secondary Middle Elementary

2014

2019

2024


The utilization profile presented in Appendix H3 illustrates the following:

Belmont Secondary would be significantly overutilized, but the space shortage would remain under 700 spaces for several years before beginning to increase to totals approaching 1,000 spaces in 2019.

The middle schools would be well utilized, but only become overutilized sometime after 2014.

As a group, the elementary schools would only become overutilized sometime after 2014.

A few elementary schools will become overutilized in the near future and require adjustments to catchment areas or other operational parameters to allow surplus students to attend other underutilized schools.

Figure 20 illustrates two alternative enrolment scenarios for secondary enrolment in the Belmont Zone:

The ‘status quo’ Grade 10-12 forecast for Belmont Secondary (shown in red).

The ‘baseline’ Grade 9-12 forecast for the Belmont Zone by adding the Grade Nines from the three middle schools (darker blue line).

The best estimate (lighter blue line) for secondary enrolment in the Belmont Zone after adding 'repatriation’ students starting in 2015 with 3% and then the full 6% in 2016 assuming that the new schools are built in 2015.

Figure 20 shows that the two new secondary schools (1,100 plus 800 spaces) serving Grades 9-12 will be full by 2016.

Figure 20: Belmont Zone Secondary Enrolment Forecast

1,943

2,752

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

9-12 Adjusted

Grade 9-12

Grade 10-12


5. EMERGING FACILITIES PLANS

5.1 UTILIZATION ANALYSIS FOR EMERGING PLANS Appendix H4 presents an analysis of capacity utilization after implementing all the projects we have identified as necessary to addressing SSD’s significant anticipated space shortfall over the 15-year planning horizon. The utilization profile presented in Appendix H4 began with the Baseline utilization profile outlined in Appendix H2 and added the following information:

New Space — this column identifies the amount of new space (specified as nominal capacity) to be provided as an addition or new facility.

New School — the red dot to the left of a school that is also shown in bolded blue text indicates a new school.

The notes in Appendix H4 focus on the space implications for each school.

We have shown all of the proposed new schools as well as expansion projects as being implemented as of 2014. This is not realistic nor is it necessary. We have done this for simplicity since the implementation for these projects is uncertain. However, this means that the capacity utilization shown for 2014 is unrealistically low. Essentially, the analysis shown in Figure 21 focuses on the 2019 timeframe.

Figure 21: Capacity Utilization with Emerging Plans Implemented

As mentioned earlier, we subtracted Port Renfrew Elementary from the capacity utilization calculations for the district as a whole and elementary schools. These adjusted utilization levels are shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 illustrates that if all the projects outlined in Appendix H4 were implemented by 2019, that the overall capacity utilization of SSD schools would be a very healthy 90% with the secondary and middle schools operating at levels

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

2014 2019 2024

District

Secondary

Middle

Elementary


closer to 100%. The capacity utilization of the elementary schools is optimal at just under 90% due to the probable increases in demand for elementary space due to MoE early childhood education and NoL community integration program initiatives.

5.2 EMERGING PLAN FOR THE MILNE ZONE Figure 22 shows the highlights of major building projects identified as part of the emerging facilities plan for the Milne Zone.

Secondary

Edward Milne Secondary will need to be expanded by 350 spaces to meet the anticipated demand for secondary students over the next 15 years. With an expanded capacity of 1,000 students, this addition would bring Edward Milne into the optimal size range for secondary schools.

It would probably be most efficient to implement this expansion as a single project. If this major expansion were to be completed in the next 5-10 years, the need for additional spaces over the next few years would be accommodated in portable classrooms. The utilization profile in Appendix H4 shows that, if Edward Milne were expanded by 350 spaces in 2019, the capacity utilization of the school would be at a respectable 84% and would fill to full utilization over the next few years.

This expansion project should be identified in the next SSD capital plan. The most immediate requirement is to obtain the additional adjacent property to allow expansion. Since it is likely that it will be necessary to expand Edward Milne beyond the 1,000 space capacity at some point in the future, SSD should develop a master site plan and acquire sufficient space to accommodate a somewhat larger school (perhaps 1,100 or 1,200 spaces).

Middle

As illustrated in the Baseline utilization profile presented in Appendix H2, middle school enrolment in the Milne Zone is anticipated to exceed 800 by the end of the planning horizon. This is too many students for a single middle school but not enough for two middle schools (ideally, middle schools should have 450-600 spaces).

We explored the possibility of maintaining Journey Middle at its existing capacity of 575 spaces, and having the surplus students attend a school in the Belmont Zone, or having a new middle school built somewhere between Sooke and Colwood. We concluded that neither option was optimal given the distance between Sooke and the next populated place (reference Figure 2).

SUNRIVER

10

20

67

1218

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km

Poirier ElementaryEdward Milne SecondaryJohn Muir ElementaryJourney MiddleSaseenos ElementarySooke ElementarySunriver Site

20

6

7

10

12

18

30

Matrix Job #1098

Figure 22

Project 10982011-02-14

New Sunriver Elementary

Expand Edward Milne

Expand orreplace

John Muir

Replace SookeElementary with

K-8 FI school

Projects Identified for the Milne Zone


Reflecting on the apparent success of the new combined elementary-middle school at John Stubbs, we propose that Journey be maintained at its current capacity and a new K-8 school be built in the Sooke area. Our preliminary idea is that the best solution would be to have the new combined school built as a replacement for the existing Sooke Elementary. This is a central location and the poor condition of the existing facility demands replacement. By 2024, our analysis indicates that 275 middle students would be attending the new Sooke Elementary-Middle.

Before pursuing a combined elementary-middle school here and elsewhere (as is discussed later), SSD should carefully examine the apparent success of the John Stubbs model. When studying the benefits of John Stubbs, SSD should review the relative merits of having French Immersion included as part of these elementary-middle schools. If it proves to be a good fit, then it would be best to relocate the French Immersion program now at Poirier to the proposed Sooke Elementary-Middle. A Sooke K-8 school would be a prime opportunity for partnership with local government and community connections through the introduction of NoL functions.

The proposed Sooke Elementary-Middle should be implemented either very soon or later after other schools in the area have been constructed. This is because it would be best if the school was closed during the construction of the replacement and Sooke Elementary students would attend other schools. If the Sooke Elementary-Middle was implemented soon, adjacent schools may have some capacity since the pressure of enrolment increases will be reduced. If the Sooke replacement was implemented later, other new elementary spaces would be available. We suggest early implementation of the proposed Sooke Elementary-Middle since no new space will be available for middle students in the Milne Zone.

Elementary

As shown in the Baseline capacity utilization profile presented in Appendix H2, there will be a shortfall of more than 900 elementary spaces in the Milne Zone (excluding Port Renfrew) by the end of the planning horizon.

The first element of our proposed response to this anticipated space shortage is to replace Sooke Elementary with a new 600-space K-8 school. By the end of the planning horizon, we anticipate that it will be necessary to adjust catchment boundaries to facilitate the shift of about 80 students from Sooke to the new Sunriver Elementary.

John Muir Elementary needs to be expanded by an estimated 125 spaces to meet anticipated demand from 2014 onward. Although a detailed technical and cost assessment may conclude that an addition and renovation is more cost effective, we believe such as study is more likely to identify replacement as the best option. With a capacity of 325 spaces, the new John Muir Elementary will be within the optimal size range for elementary schools. This replacement project should be implemented in the next 5-10 years, earlier if SSD wants John Muir to take some Sooke Elementary students during the year or so when the new Sooke Elementary-Middle is being constructed.


Poirier should remain as is with surplus students going to a new Sunriver Elementary to be built on a site in the Sunriver residential development. We estimate that this new 300-space school should be built in about ten years or earlier if SSD wants to accommodate some Sooke Elementary students during implementation of the new Sooke Elementary-Middle.

Saseenos Elementary should be retained for the short to medium term until demand for elementary students in the area becomes clearer.

Port Renfrew Elementary School is a special case due to the distance and the very low enrolment. Although there is some new development being discussed for Port Renfrew, the new housing is unlikely to generate very many school-aged children. The school facility is in poor condition. SSD should search to find a way to provide educational services to the elementary school students in Port Renfrew without maintaining a permanent facility. This may involve a partnership with local organizations (such as the Pacheedaht Band), some form of distance education, or a combination of such strategies.

5.3 EMERGING PLAN FOR THE BELMONT ZONE Figure 23 shows the highlights of major building projects identified as part of the emerging facilities plan for the Belmont Zone.

Secondary

As outlined earlier, this update is based on the following key parameters:

Schools in the Belmont Zone will be converted to a junior middle school grade configuration.

The proposed two new secondary schools (new 800-space Westshore and 1,100-space Belmont replacement) will be implemented as proposed.

We recommend that the planned expansion of the new Westshore Secondary to 1,100 spaces be implemented very soon after the project is completed. These additional 300 spaces will prevent the Belmont Zone secondary schools from becoming significantly overutilized before the end of the this decade — the Baseline capacity utilization shown in Appendix H2 indicates that the two secondary schools will have a shortage of nearly 300 spaces in 2019.

Even with the proposed expansion of the new Westshore Secondary, our enrolment forecasts show that the two Belmont Zone secondary schools will be operating at 125% utilization. While it is possible for secondary schools to operate satisfactorily at beyond 100% utilization, this level of crowding is not acceptable. Of course, portable classrooms can provide relief for a period. However, a more permanent solution will be required at some point before the end of the 15-year planning horizon.

SD 61

ROYALBAY

OLYMPICVIEW

BEARMOUNTAIN

WESTHILLS

13

16

4

2

1723

22

14

5

1

21

9

3

19

26

27

24

2829

11

31

LANGFORD

COLWOOD

VIEWROYAL

Figure 23

Project 10982011-02-14

Belmont SecondaryColwood ElementaryCrystal View ElementaryDavid Cameron ElementaryDunsmuir MiddleHappy Valley ElementaryJohn Stubbs Elementary/MiddleLakewood ElementaryMillstream ElementaryRuth King Elementary

1

2

3

4

5

9

11

13

14

16

Sangster ElementarySavory ElementarySpencer MiddleWillway ElementaryWishart ElementaryProposed Belmont Replacement SiteLatoria Road SiteProposed Westshore Secondary SiteEcho Valley Elementary SiteNorth Langford K-8 SiteRoyal Bay Elementary Site

19

17

21

23

22

26

28

24

27

29

31

Projects Identified for the Belmont Zone

New North Langford K-8 school

New Echo Valleyelementary

Replace Sangster

Replace Dunsmuir

Westshore Secondary

Belmont replacement

New Westhillselementary

Expand Happy Valley


Physical expansion of one or both of the new secondary schools is not an ideal option since it would make one or both schools larger than the 1,100-space optimum. It is not too early for SSD to think about a fourth secondary school. The key issue, of course, is to identify a suitable site for such a major facility. In addition, SSD will need to determine the best way to accommodate surplus students until such time as there is sufficient ‘critical mass’ to warrant the construction of a major new secondary school with a capacity at or approaching the 900-space minimum for an optimally-sized secondary. SSD could use some combination of strategies including portable classrooms and extended schedules.

Middle

The key challenges related to the middle schools in the Belmont Zone are as follows:

Enrolment at all three middle schools will exceed capacity in the next 5-10 years with a total estimated shortage of more than 800 spaces by the end of the planning horizon.

The facility deficiencies at Dunsmuir Middle will require replacement.

As outlined in Appendix H4, the development of a new 650-space middle school north of the TransCanada Highway is the most significant project for middle schools in the Belmont Zone. It should be implemented in about ten years and will be fully utilized by the end of the planning horizon. We show this new school as a stand-alone project in Appendix H4, but it presents a good opportunity to combine with the planned replacement for Millstream Elementary to create a K-8 school similar to John Stubbs and the new school planned for Sooke — this could include French Immersion. Such a North Langford Elementary-Middle would be able to occupy a single site — a major advantage in an area where it is particularly difficult to find suitably large and flat properties. This major building project could be implemented in phases, possibly with the elementary component being built first. The concept of a new North Langford Elementary-Middle will require further study and a suitable property must be located.

Another major middle school project for the Belmont Zone is the proposal to replace Dunsmuir with a new facility of the same capacity on the same site. Excess enrolment from this catchment area would be shifted to attend the proposed new middle school north of TransCanada Highway. Until the new middle is built, the existing Dunsmuir site will need to accommodate several portable classrooms. The site for the new Dunsmuir Middle could be developed in conjunction with a replacement for Sangster Elementary on a site adjacent to the Dunsmuir site. The existing Dunsmuir Middle should remain operational while the new replacement school is being constructed. Since this project does not add capacity, it should be implemented later, possibly in 10-15 years. The re-energizing of the Royal Bay could accelerate the need for replacing Dunsmuir Middle.


Our proposal is to maintain John Stubbs and Spencer at their current capacities with excess enrolment being accommodated in portable classrooms until the new middle school is ready to receive students. SSD should budget for a major modernization of Spencer towards the end of the planning horizon.

As shown in Appendix H4, the four middle schools in the Belmont Zone would have a combined utilization of about 100% in 2019 and 2024.

Elementary

We propose the following new or replacement elementary schools for the Belmont Zone:

Millstream — replace Millstream with a new 400-space school as part of a new combined Elementary-Middle on a new site north of TransCanada Highway (North Langford K-8 school). This is probably the highest priority elementary project in the Belmont Zone due to the need for more capacity in the area as well as the poor condition of the existing building. The existing Millstream site could be used as part of an arrangement with local government and other interested parties to obtain new school sites or help with joint development of play fields.

Sangster — replace Sangster with a new 400-space school on a site adjacent to Dunsmuir Middle. This is the second priority elementary project in the Belmont Zone due to the need for more capacity in the area as well as the poor condition of the existing building. SSD should explore the potential to build Sangster Elementary and Dunsmuir Middle as a combined K-8 school.

Westhills — build a new 400-space school on a new site as part of the Westhills residential development. This is the third priority elementary project in the Belmont Zone.

New Echo Valley Elementary — a new 400-space elementary school on a new site (possibly the Echo Valley site shown on Figures 3 and 23). This is the fourth priority elementary project in the Belmont Zone. The scale and location of this school needs to be studied further as the number of SSD students living in the Bear Mountain area becomes clearer.

We also propose a 50-space addition to Happy Valley Elementary, although this addition could be implemented towards the end of the planning horizon. It is also possible that there may be more growth than we have indicated in the South Langford and South Colwood areas, especially if the Royal Bay development proceeds faster than we have shown. If this additional growth materializes, SSD should consider planning a new elementary school for the reserved elementary site at Royal Bay or in another location in the area. The construction of such a school could negate the need to expand Happy Valley Elementary.

The students for the new elementary schools would come from Sangster and Millstream, of course, but also from the surplus enrolment at Hans Helgesen, Happy Valley, David Cameron, John Stubbs, Ruth King and Lakewood. Another source of enrolment for the new Westhills Elementary would be Savory Elementary, since we propose to discontinue the use of Savory as a regular elementary school. The Savory facility would be re-purposed for another SSD


educational support function where its deficient building condition is more easily addressed or not as critical to the health, safety and comfort of its occupants.

We envision no changes to the capacities of the following elementary schools in the Belmont Zone: Hans Helgesen, Wishart, Colwood, David Cameron, Crystal View, John Stubbs, Ruth King, Lakewood and Willway. Ideally, the school facilities at Wishart, Ruth King and Willway would be modernized over the next decade or so.

When all the proposed changes are completed to the elementary schools in the Belmont Zone, it will have achieved many desired goals:

All but three schools will be within the 300-450 space optimal capacity range. The three schools that are smaller are all over 225 spaces.

The building condition of all the schools will be rated Excellent or Good. Many of the schools will be new. All students will be going to school in modern facilities that are safe, healthy, comfortable and functional.

Capacity utilization will be at 88% or greater in 2019, depending on how much new space has been implemented within the next ten years.

Capacity utilization would be at just over 100% in 2024, assuming all projects were implemented by the end of the planning horizon.

5.4 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS Figure 24 summarizes the 16 building projects that form the facilities plan for SSD over the next decade or so. These projects are described in the previous two sections and reflected in the capacity utilization profile for the emerging plan presented in Appendix H4. Figure 24 presents the projects in order of timing:

‘Short’ for projects that should be implemented soon and certainly within the next five years.

‘Medium’ for projects that should be implemented in the next 5-10 years, but that may require land acquisition of planning activities sooner.

‘Long’ for projects that should be implemented towards the end of the planning horizon, although some (such as the modernization projects) could be implemented sooner.

Figure 24 indicates that a total of 4,775 new spaces need to be provided in SSD over the next decade or so. This total is 200 spaces greater than the equivalent total in Appendix H4 since Figure 24 shows John Muir Elementary as replaced rather than expanded as in the utilization profile presented in Appendix H4.

Creating 4,775 new spaces is the equivalent of almost half of the SSD’s current inventory of 9,650 spaces (10,150 spaces shown in Figure 9 less the 500 extra spaces provided as a result of replacing Belmont Secondary with two new secondary schools). This is a very large building program and will require careful stewardship to implement.


Figure 24: Preliminary List of Building Projects from Emerging Plan

5.5 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS The most significant risk facing SSD in relation to the proposed building plan is the uncertainty of funding approval from MoE. Another key potential impediment is the challenge of finding and securing appropriate properties for the project requiring new sites.

A final central concern is the variable speed of residential development — the risk is not so much determining the absolute need for schools, but rather the timing of the need and, to a lesser degree, the geographic distribution of enrolment throughout the highly dynamic school district.

A FUTURE CAPACITIES

OF SSD SCHOOLS Reference Section 2.2 for background related to the

information presented in the following table.

Future Capacities of SSD Schools Appendix A

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 14 SSD report figures.xlsx • Capacites

School Kind

erga

rten

Grad

es 1

–12

Porta

bles

201

0

Mod

ular

s 201

1

Expa

nsio

n 20

11

Actu

al g

ross

are

a w

ith a

dditi

ons

Stro

ngSt

art

Dayc

are

Com

mun

ity

prog

ram

s

Revi

sed

nom

inal

ca

pacit

y K-

12

Oper

atio

nal

capa

city

K-12

Area

per

stud

ent

Notes

• Colwood Elementary K 6 80 200 2403 1 K 5 225 198 12.1 1

• Crystal View Elementary K 6 40 200 4 2563 K 5 325 286 9.0 14

• David Cameron Elementary K 6 40 325 3932 K 5 400 352 11.2 1, 3

• Hans Helegsen Elementary K 6 80 175 1 2369 K 5 250 220 10.8

• Happy Valley Elementary K 6 40 200 3 6 2933 √ K 5 375 330 8.9 1, 4, 14

• John Muir Elementary K 5 40 200 2262 1 K 5 200 176 12.9

• Lakewood Elementary K 6 40 250 1 5 3339 K 5 400 352 9.5 1, 14

• Millstream Elementary K 6 40 175 2218 1 K 5 200 176 12.6 1

• Poirier Elementary K 5 80 325 2 3165 K 5 425 374 8.5

• Port Renfrew Elementary K 5 0 75 1345 K 5 75 66 20.4

• Ruth King Elementary K 6 40 375 2 4009 1 1 K 5 375 330 12.1 5, 6

• Sangster Elementary K 6 40 175 1 1975 1 K 5 250 220 9.0

• Saseenos Elementary K 5 40 175 2145 1 √ K 5 200 176 12.2 7

• Savory Elementary K 6 40 150 2028 1 K 5 200 176 11.5

• Sooke Elementary K 5 40 250 1 2729 2 K 5 300 264 10.3

• Willway Elementary K 6 40 250 1 2757 1 1 K 5 275 242 11.4

• Wishart Elementary K 6 40 325 2 3538 √ K 5 400 352 10.1 8

• John Stubbs Elem-Middle K 9 80 725 4 7458 K 8 900 828 9.0 13, 14

Dunsmuir Middle 7 9 n/a 600 4 7408 6 8 600 600 12.3 9

Journey Middle 6 8 n/a 575 6208 6 8 575 575 10.8

Spencer Middle 7 9 n/a 650 5 8000 6 8 650 650 12.3 10, 11

Edward Milne Secondary 9 12 n/a 650 3 8981 9 12 650 650 13.8

◑ New Belmont Secondary 9 12 n/a 1,100 3 11140 9 12 1,100 1,100 10.1 2◑ Royal Bay Secondary 9 12 n/a 800 8565 9 12 800 800 10.7 2

SSD Totals K 12 840 8,925 21 8 19 103472 5 7 3 K 12 10,150 9,493 10.9

Subtotals, Elementary K 6 840 4,550 6 8 19 53170 5 7 3 K 5 5,775 5,118 10.4 13

Subtotals, Middle 6 9 80 2,550 9 0 4 29074 0 0 0 6 8 2,725 2,653 11.0 13

Subtotals, Secondary 8 12 0 2,550 6 0 0 28686 0 0 0 9 12 2,550 2,550 11.2

▶ Belmont Secondary 8 12 n/a 1,400 15462 8 12 1,400 1,400 11.0 12

Notes Notes1 Before and after school care share multipurpose. 8 Classroom rented to Sooke Family Resources.2 Area based on ME area allocations. 9 Two of the portables are for our behavior program.3 Deaf and hard of hearing Provincial Resource Program. 10 Theatre used exclusively by students.

Using this space for classrooms would increase capacity by 50 spaces. 11 One portable used for a district meeting room.4 Community space (161 m2) to be used for community functions after expansion. SSD selling two portables.

5 Portables used for long term lease with Capital Families. 12 To be replaced by two new secondary schools.6 StrongStart shares with before and after school care. Daycare shares with music. 13 Both Elementary and Middle subtotals include John Stubbs.7 Aboriginal room used for meetings and seminars. 14 Capacity assumes planned expansion is complete with areas

estimated as 100 m2 per classroom.

Grad

e sp

an

Revi

sed

grad

e sp

an

B ANALYSIS OF SSD

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITIES

Colwood Elementary

Crystal View Elementary

David Cameron Elementary

Hans Helegsen Elementary

Happy Valley Elementary

John Muir Elementary

Lakewood Elementary

Millstream Elementary

Poirier Elementary

Port Renfrew Elementary

Ruth King Elementary

Sangster Elementary

Saseenos Elementary

Savory Elementary

Sooke Elementary

Willway Elementary

Wishart Elementary

Analysis of SSD Elementary School Capacities Appendix B

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 08 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Colwood

Elementary Capacity Analysis with Full-Day Kindergarten

School Name Colwood ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 9Reported Nominal Capacity 200 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 175 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 225Operational Capacity with FDK 9 198

Space Function Existing Allowable Difference

Admin/Health 109.2 80 29.2

General Instruction with K 710.2 740 -29.8

General Storage 58.9 40 18.9

Gym Activity 370.1 380 -9.9

Gym Ancillary 56.8 65 -8.2

Media/Tech Centre 147.2 160 -12.8

Multi-purpose 80.8 0 80.8

Special Education 122.5 120 2.5

Mechanical 40.8 50 -9.2

Design Space 615.7 370 245.7

Other 90.9 90.9

Total Area 2403.1 2005 398.1

Percent over allowable area 19.9%

Percent over allowable area without Other 15.3%

Percent over allowable area without Design Space or Other 3.8%

Notes

Nominal capacity must be in increments of 25

Evaluated as K-5 although currently K-6

"Other" is StrongStart that occupies one kindergarten classroom

Design space is much too large

Before and after school care program shares multipurpose

Severe Behaviour Program uses one classroom


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Crystal


School Name Crystal View ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 13Reported Nominal Capacity 200 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 250 50FDK Modules/Capacity 3 325Operational Capacity with FDK 13 286





Gym Activity 385.9 380 5.9



Multi-purpose 99.0 100 -1.0



Design Space 588.1 470 118.1

Other 0.0

Total Area 2563.3 2550 13.3



Percent over allowable area without Design Space or Other -5.0%

Notes





Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 08 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • DC


School Name David Cameron ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 16Reported Nominal Capacity 325 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 325 0FDK Modules/Capacity 3 400Operational Capacity with FDK 16 352




General Storage 44.5 60 -15.5

Gym Activity 378.1 380 -1.9

Gym Ancillary 76.2 65 11.2

Media/Tech Centre 190.4 180 10.4


Special Education 155.3 160 -4.7


Design Space 1369.1 570 799.1

Other 0.0

Total Area 3932.4 3095 837.4




Notes




Before and after school care share multipurpose

Reported capacity subtracted space occupied by Provincial Resource Program

We converted space occupied by Provincal Resource Program to 2 classrooms

Schools with 13 classrooms should have 4 K modules — this has only 3


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • HH


School Name Hans Helegsen ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 9Reported Nominal Capacity 175 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 200 25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 250Operational Capacity with FDK 10 220



General Instruction with K 825.0 820 5.0








Design Space 626.6 405 221.6

Other 0.0

Total Area 2369.1 2210 159.1




Notes



Design space is too large

One modular classroom adds 90 m2 to area and 25 spaces to capacity

School of this size should have multipurpose space


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • HV


School Name Happy Valley ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 15Reported Nominal Capacity 200 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 300 100FDK Modules/Capacity 3 375Operational Capacity with FDK 15 330











Design Space 637.5 540 97.5

Other 160.6 160.6

Total Area 2933.3 2870 63.3


Percent over allowable area without Other -3.4%


Notes



Design space is too large

Community space (Other) is deducted from capacity


Expansion of 6 classrooms 480 120


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • JMuir


School Name John Muir ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 9Reported Nominal Capacity 200 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 150 -50FDK Modules/Capacity 2 200Operational Capacity with FDK 8 176


Admin/Health 73.5 80 -6.5



Gym Activity 375.6 265 110.6





Mechanical 59.3 45 14.3

Design Space 592.5 320 272.5

Other 77.3 77.3

Total Area 2262.4 1735 527.4




Notes



StrongStart is occupying one classroom

Gym and Multipurpose spaces are larger than allowed for 150 space school


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Lake


School Name Lakewood ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 16Reported Nominal Capacity 250 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 325 75FDK Modules/Capacity 3 400Operational Capacity with FDK 16 352





Gym Activity 357.5 380 -22.5






Design Space 932.3 570 362.3

Other 0.0

Total Area 3339.2 3095 244.2




Notes





This school should have 4 K modules — this has only 3


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 08 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Mill


School Name Millstream ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 9Reported Nominal Capacity 175 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 150 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 200Operational Capacity with FDK 8 176











Design Space 637.9 320 317.9

Other 69.3 69.3

Total Area 2217.8 1735 482.8




Notes



StrongStart is occupying one classroom


Before and after school care share space

Learning Assistance occupies one classroom divided into two rooms


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Poir


School Name Poirier ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 15Reported Nominal Capacity 325 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 325 0FDK Modules/Capacity 4 425Operational Capacity with FDK 17 374





Gym Activity 369.6 380 -10.4






Design Space 738.3 570 168.3

Other 0.0

Total Area 3165.1 3095 70.1




Notes



Two modular classrooms add 180 m2 to area and 50 spaces to capacity

Several support areas are too small after the addition of 2 modulars


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Port


School Name Port Renfrew ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 3Reported Nominal Capacity 75 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 50 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 1 75Operational Capacity with FDK 3 66





Gym Activity 329.4 100 229.4






Design Space 420.9 120 300.9

Other 0.0

Total Area 1344.8 635 709.8




Notes


Design space and gym are much too large


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 14 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • RK


School Name Ruth King ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 17Reported Nominal Capacity 375 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 300 -75FDK Modules/Capacity 3 375Operational Capacity with FDK 15 330





Gym Activity 332.9 380 -47.1






Design Space 1418.5 540 878.5

Other 87.4 87.4

Total Area 4008.9 2870 1138.9




Notes



Counted 2 small classrooms as one

StrongStart occupies one classroom and is considered Other

StrongStart space also used for before and after care

One classroom used for 'Journeys of the Heart' program


Daycare shares with music


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 14 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Sang


School Name Sangster ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 10Reported Nominal Capacity 175 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 200 25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 250Operational Capacity with FDK 10 220





Gym Activity 283.2 380 -96.8






Design Space 433.5 405 28.5

Other 0.0

Total Area 1975.1 2210 -234.9

Percent over allowable area -10.6%

Percent over allowable area without Other -10.6%


Notes




Before and after care (Happy Campers) not deducted from capacity

Assigned a classroom as multipurpose

Most support spaces are too small for the capacity


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 08 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Sas


School Name Saseenos ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 8Reported Nominal Capacity 175 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 150 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 200Operational Capacity with FDK 8 176











Design Space 584.1 320 264.1

Other 0.0

Total Area 2145.3 1735 410.3




Notes



Aboriginal room used for community meetings but not deducted from capacity

Montessori pre-school program not deducted from capacity


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 14 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Savory


School Name Savory ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 8Reported Nominal Capacity 150 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 150 0FDK Modules/Capacity 2 200Operational Capacity with FDK 8 176











Design Space 642.0 320 322.0

Other 0.0

Total Area 2028.1 1735 293.1




Notes




Classrooms are small


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Sooke


School Name Sooke ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 12Reported Nominal Capacity 250 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 225 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 3 300Operational Capacity with FDK 12 264





Gym Activity 331.7 380 -48.3






Design Space 684.0 450 234.0

Other 0.0

Total Area 2729.1 2425 304.1




Notes




Daycare, which occupies 2 classrooms, not deducted from capacity


Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 02 14 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Will


School Name Willway ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 10Reported Nominal Capacity 250 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 225 -25FDK Modules/Capacity 2 275Operational Capacity with FDK 11 242





Gym Activity 358.8 380 -21.2






Design Space 691.9 450 241.9

Other 80.0 80.0

Total Area 2757.0 2425 332.0




Notes





StrongStart occupies one classroom and is considered Other



Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD Design Aid analysis.xlsx • Wish


School Name Wishart ElementarySchool District SD 62 (Sooke)Grade Span/Actual Classrooms with K K-5 16Reported Nominal Capacity 325 net changeProposed Nominal Capacity with FDK 325 0FDK Modules/Capacity 3 400Operational Capacity with FDK 16 352











Design Space 1002.0 570 432.0

Other 0.0

Total Area 3537.8 3095 442.8




Notes



Two modular classrooms add 180 m2 to area and 50 spaces to capacity


Classroom rented to Sooke Family Resources not deducted from capacity

C PLANNING DATA FOR

SSD SCHOOL FACILITIES Reference Section 2.3 for background related to the

information presented in the following table.

Planning Data for SSD School Facilities Appendix C

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 12 SSD report figures.xlsx • Facilities

Site

Are

a (h

a)

Utili

ty a

s Sc

hool

Site

Expa

ndab

ility

on

Site

Owne

rshi

p St

atus

Gros

s Flo

or

Area

(m2 )

Porta

bles

Year

Bui

lt

Seism

ic Ri

sk

Seism

ic Pr

iorit

y

Seism

ic Up

grad

e Es

timat

e

Over

all F

acili

ty

Audi

t Sco

re

Build

ing

Cond

ition

Notes

Belmont Secondary 8.5 Adequate Adequate SD 15462 3 1953 Mod/High 7,132,320 48% 5 Poor 1,13 1 Poor site circulation and/or access

Colwood Elementary 3.6 Good Good SD 2418 0 2002 98% 1 Excellent 2 2 Next to busy road

Crystal View Elementary 2.0 Adequate Good SD 2170 0 2004 100% 1 Excellent 3,4,5 3 Audit scores assumed to be

David Cameron Elementary 2.6 Good Adequate SD 3932 0 1995 Low/Mod 499,470 79% 2 Good 6 100% for new facilities

Dunsmuir Middle 3.7 Adequate Poor SD 7408 6 1965 Low/Mod 1,144,910 54% 4 Deficient 1,2 4 Parts of site are unusable

Edward Milne Secondary 4.6 Good Adequate SD 8981 3 1996 80% 2 Good 5 Environmentally sensitive site

Hans Helegsen Elementary 3.0 Good Adequate SD 2279 0 1992 82% 2 Good 12 6 Slab settlement

Happy Valley Elementary 1.7 Adequate Good SD 2170 0 2006 100% 1 Excellent 3 7 Parking is limited

John Muir Elementary 2.0 Adequate Adequate SD 2262 0 1970 54% 4 Deficient 1,8,9,14 8 Site drainage issues

John Stubbs Elementary 2.2 Good Good SD 2660 0 2008 100% 1 Excellent 3,11, 15 9 Small playing fields

John Stubbs Middle 3.1 Good Good SD 4500 0 2008 100% 1 Excellent 3,11, 15 10 Property purchase to allow for expansion

Journey Middle 11.3 Adequate Adequate SD 6208 0 1993 74% 2 Good 1,9 11 John Stubbs is middle and elementary

Lakewood Elementary 1.8 Good Good SD 2690 0 1994 81% 2 Good 2,10 12 Modulars are part of capacity

Millstream Elementary 2.1 Poor Poor SD 2218 0 1959 Moderate 4 485,690 48% 5 Poor 1,4,7 and excluded from portable count

Poirier Elementary 3.5 Adequate Good SD 2985 0 2001 91% 1 Excellent 1, 12 13 To be replaced

Port Renfrew Elementary 2.3 Adequate Good SD 1345 0 1970 High 684,100 46% 5 Poor 14 Recent seismic upgrade

Ruth King Elementary 2.8 Good Good SD 4009 0 1948 Low/Mod 306,400 61% 3 Adequate 15 50 year lease is equivalent to owned

Sangster Elementary 1.7 Adequate Poor SD 1885 0 1958 Mod/High 1 842,680 49% 5 Poor 12

Saseenos Elementary 1.8 Poor Poor SD 2145 0 1959 Moderate 5 667,810 52% 4 Deficient 2 Building condition rating scale

Savory Elementary 2.0 Poor Poor SD 2028 0 1966 Moderate 6 532,280 51% 4 Deficient 2,4 1 Excellent

Sooke Elementary 2.7 Good Good SD 2639 0 1959 Moderate 2 887,590 51% 5 Poor 3,6,12 2 Good

Spencer Middle 4.5 Good Poor SD 8000 7 1977 Mod/High 4,365,080 55% 3 Adequate 4 3 Adequate

Willway Elementary 2.7 Good Good SD 2667 0 1977 Moderate 7 476,700 67% 3 Adequate 12 4 Deficient

Wishart Elementary 2.9 Good Good SD 3358 0 1971 Low/Mod 3 587,860 62% 3 Adequate 12 5 Poor

Totals and Averages 79.1 3 poor 6 poor 96420 19 1980 4 High 18,612,890 70% 2.9 Adequate

PROPERTY FACILITY

Notes

D RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN SSD

Appendix D

Arlington Group Planning and Architecture, August 2010 1

Residential Development Activity in SSD Arlington Group Planning and Architecture, August 2010

District of Highlands

General Comments The District of Highlands is a rural municipality on the northern fringe of a rapidly developing Langford. With the exception of Hannington Creek Estates in the southern part of Highlands, the development pattern consists of rural and rural residential development. The 2009 population estimate from BC Stats was 2,175, the lowest of the five municipalities within the Sooke School District. Although the annual population increase from 2006 to 2009 has been 2.7%, the numerical increase of 165 persons was not large and was largely due to a single development that is approaching full build-out. The Highlands Official Community plan was adopted in 2007. The OCP recognizes the rural lifestyle character that is the prime attraction of the area. As a result, the further conversion of undeveloped land (beyond that already zoned) into suburban land is considered inappropriate and discouraged through OCP policies. The Capital Regional Districts Regional Growth Strategy foresees Highlands as a rural community with no role as an area for urban development in the long term.

Most of District of Highlands is within School District 62 although the eastern part is within School District 61. Most students in Highlands are bussed to Lakewood Elementary School. There are approximately 700 dwelling units in Highlands. Full build-out is expected to increase to 1,020 dwelling units. Over the past decade, the District has grown at a rate of 17 single family homes per year. This growth rate is expected to continue. If this occurs, full build-out of the District will take 15-20 years. The vast majority of Highlands consists of rural, rural residential, parkland and managed forests. Services are very limited in these rural and rural residential areas (i.e. roads, hydro and telephone). The minimum parcel sizes are 2, 5, 10, and 30 acres depending on zoning and amenities offered. A different development pattern will take place in the southern part of Highlands. This area will be fully serviced to accommodate industrial, commercial, recreation tourism, and suburban and urban residential developments. Residential development will consist of the northerly part of the Bear Mountain development and Hannington Creek Estates. Although a large majority of the Bear Mountain development is located in the City of Langford, a small portion is located in the southern part of the District of Highlands. Approximately 150 single family dwellings in the Bear Mountain project will be located in the District of Highlands. The other suburban development is Hannington Creek Estates, located north of Bear Mountain.

Applications for approximately 40 single family lots, part rural and part suburban in the southern part of Highlands, have been submitted this year.

Specific Developments

Lakewood Elementary Catchment Area Hannington Creek Estates This significant development consists of 57 strata lots and is located off Hannington Road west of Millstream Road, in the southern part of Highlands. This high-end single family development was due to proceed when the 2007 Long Range Facilities Plan was prepared. Hannington Creek Estates has municipal sewerage and water services and is close to full build-out as 48 houses have been constructed in the past three years. Construction is actively taking place there.

Bear Mountain (LGB 9 Development Corp.) Zoning for 150 single family dwellings in the Bear Mountain development located within the District of Highland has been approved. A subdivision application was submitted for 73 single family lots but this

Appendix D


expired after several extensions. As the Bear Mountain project is currently under creditor protection, the development time frame is uncertain.

Future Trends Most rural development will consist of small infill development with a slow growth rate similar to pervious years. Bear Mountain, on the other hand, will consist of fully serviced and comprehensive urban development of 150 single family lots. The timing of development may be extended beyond 5 years as the project is under creditor protection. Overall the OCP indicates that the District desires to grow at approximately 15 homes per year.

District of Highlands contact: Jon Munn, Municipal Planner (250-474-1773). Jon is serving in a temporary capacity for Laura Beckett, who is on maternity leave for a year.

District of Metchosin

General Comments Metchosin is a rural municipality very intent on maintaining its current rural status. Although the population is increasing, it is doing so at a very slow and steady rate, well below the average of the Sooke School District. The estimated 2009 population of Metchosin was 5,133. This represents an increase of 164 persons since the 2006 census or 1.1% annually. However the average household size of 2.8 persons is well above the CRD average of 2.3.

Most of the land in the Official Community Plan is designated for rural, agricultural, park or institutional use. There are no suburban or urban residential designations. The District of Metchosin OCP (adopted in 1995) estimated the annual rate of new dwelling units per year would level off at an average of 46 dwelling units per year for the period of 1993 through 2006. This was considered (at the time) to be the maximum potential build-out for the area with an estimated population of 6,265 people by December 2006. In fact the rate of growth in Metchosin slowed considerably from the 1995 estimate and in the last 10 years (2000 to 2010) has averaged a growth rate of only 15 units per year.

Based on a 2010 analysis by District staff, there are a potential 433 potential new lots that could be created based on the existing OCP residential designations. The majority of these potential lots (236) are designated Upland, which has a minimum parcel size of 4 hectares. Some of the remainder is in the ALR (potential 28 lots) and can only be subdivided with the approval of the Agricultural Reserve Commission. The remaining potential (169 lots) all has rural designations. This includes 93 potential Rural lots with a minimum area of 2 hectares, 57 Rural Residential lots with a minimum area of 0.4 hectares and 19 Rural Residential lots with a minimum area of 0.8 hectares. This potential can only be achieved if there is a suitable water supply and septic disposal field. This potential inventory does not include CRD properties, Crown lands or municipal parks.

Consideration had previously been given to expanding the boundaries of Metchosin to include East Sooke. However this is no longer under consideration.

Specific Developments

Hans Helgesen Elementary Catchment Area Mallock Road The largest current development proposal is a 7-lot subdivision proposed in the southern part of the District near the intersection of Mallock Road and Rocky Point Road.

Manzanita Heights Nine lots were created on this site with several currently for sale.

La Bonne This development consisted of 14 four-hectare lots in Phase 1 and 12 two-hectare lots in Phase 2. Three quarters of these lots have been developed.

Appendix D


Centre Mountain A resort villa had been proposed on a 162-hectare site. However this proposed development involving a golf course and 30 potential residential lots will not proceed.

Future Trends District staff expects the future trend to be similar to recent past experience. Since 2001, the average number of new single family dwellings has averaged 15 per year. Typical developments have consisted of small infill lots. The limited development that has taken place is driven mainly by retired and downsizing families, often from Alberta. However there have been some young families. Based on staff comments, Council policy, a review of the OCP and Zoning Bylaws, it is likely future growth in the District of Metchosin over the next 15 years will be at or below 1% annually. The household size of 2.8 persons is not expected to decline significantly due to the unique rural nature of Metchosin. District of Metchosin contact: Sheila Mackay, Technical Assistant (250-474-3196)

District of Sooke

General Comments The District Sooke is a suburban municipality that has experienced significant growth in recent years. The 2009 population estimate by BC Stats was 10,540. This represents an annual population growth rate of 1.5% since 2006. A new Official Community Plan was recently adopted on May 17th 2010 to guide the community’s future growth. Although the Regional Growth Strategy of the CRD has designated the entire district as an Urban Growth Area, municipal policies and servicing constraints effectively limit population growth within the District. Virtually all residential growth is concentrated where municipal sanitary sewerage services are available. The sanitary sewerage system became operational in the summer of 2006 and generally covers the west of the Sooke River, north to Helgeson Road but includes an extension to include Sunriver Estates, west to past John Muir Elementary, southwest to West Coast Road and south to the Sooke Harbour. Incremental extensions have taken place from time to time to accommodate urban developments.

The Town Centre designation in the vicinity of Sooke Elementary School accommodates the highest densities in Sooke. A much larger area, almost entirely west of the Sooke River is designated Community Residential. There, the base density is 10 dwelling units/hectare. A goal of this area is to ensure the sustainable construction of single family and multi-family residential dwellings and reduce residential sprawl. Objectives are to:

o Provide a range of high quality housing types, tenures and densities, which can meet the diverse needs of, and attract, individuals and families of varying income levels and demographics;

o Provide affordable and attainable housing opportunities, to meet the needs of various age groups, family types, lifestyles and income groups;

o Encourage a variety of housing types, including coach housing, row housing, live/work units and townhouses, etc. that diversify the housing stock; and

o Provide the most efficient use of land and existing physical infrastructure in terms of infill/densification.

A large majority of the Sooke, Poirier and John Muir elementary catchment areas are within the District of Sooke’s Community Residential OCP designations. The Sooke Elementary catchment area also includes the Town Centre OCP designation. Most of the Saseenos Elementary catchment area is designated Rural Residential (base density of 1 dwelling unit/4 hectares) or Gateway Residential (base density of 1 dwelling unit/hectare). These areas all lack sanitary sewerage service.

The District of Sooke continues to be more affordable compared to more central municipalities in the CRD. With fully serviced lots available from $130,000 in Sooke and a community that is welcoming to school age children, significant future population growth is anticipated.

Appendix D


The new Zoning Bylaw for Sooke includes increased densities for areas with sanitary sewerage service as well as an expanded area where urban development can take place. This is expected to lead to continued high levels of single family development as well as an increase in townhouses. Although Sooke has allowed higher density multi-family development (mixed use and apartments), the market demand to date has been minimal. Numerous approved developments have remained vacant or have been downzoned to single family use at the owners’ request.

An impediment to growth has been job creation. There is no indication this will change soon as commercial and industrial building permit activity has been weak. Another variable is the cost of commuting. Sooke is seen as a bedroom community with many residents commuting to Langford or Downtown Victoria. The cost advantage of living in Sooke will be reduced if it is eroded by higher transportation costs.

Specific Developments by Elementary Attendance Area

Sooke Elementary Catchment Area Sunriver Estates This is the largest planned development in Sooke. It was originally planned to consist of 615 single family dwellings plus 100 multi-family units for a total of 715 dwelling units. The multi-phase project is located just west of the Sooke River on a 155-hectare site. Zoned Comprehensive Development, the project includes mainly conventional urban lots although a future phase has large lots up to 1,300 m2. The average house size is 2,100 square feet although houses as large as 3,500 square feet have been built in the development. The project includes a strong building scheme. Sunriver Estates is the market leader in Sooke. Approximately 400 single family houses have been built to date plus 34 2BR townhouses oriented to adults 55 and older. Sales have ranged from 60-80 per year. Single family houses in Sunriver Estates are currently listed for prices ranging from $359,500 to $517,900. The Sales Manager anticipates full build-out in about 4 years. He indicated that 60% of buyers are in the 32-55 age group. 30% of buyers are younger and 10% are older. A large proportion of purchasers have children. This is reinforced by the presence of a 3,000 square foot childcare centre, which has provided daycare services to children up to five years of age since September 2005. (Contact: Blair Watling, Sales Manager)

3070 Phillips Road This single family strata subdivision on Phillips Road approximately 1.6 km north of Sunriver Way, the main access to Sunriver Estates. The unusual zoning on the 10 large sites will allow a total of 44 single family dwellings on strata lots. Houses are currently under construction.

6402 and 6418 Sooke Road This 2.8-hectare site on Sooke Road 0.5 km west of the Sooke River has been zoned RM-3. This zoning permits a total of 153 condos. A DP application has been made.

Harbourview Centre – 6527 Sooke Road DP approval for a 31 unit four storey condo project has been given. The 1BR and 2BR units are priced from $189,000. One third of the units have been sold to date.

Mariner’s Village – Sooke Road The old Quimper Motel site across from Sooke Elementary is to be constructed as a 5-hectare waterfront resort and marina. Mariner’s Village at full build-out will have approximately 100 townhouses and 240 condos, 15,000 m2 of retail and office space and 159 boat slips. The first phase of the development consists of 33 condo units and 16 townhouses with completion anticipated in the fall of 2011. Ninety per cent of the residential units will range in price from $249,000 to $525,000, a few penthouses will be in the $600,000-$800,000 range, with townhouses averaging $450,000.

Appendix D


2113 and 2119 Charters Road This 5 hectare site with frontage on Charters and Throup Roads was zoned RM-3 in August 2007. This zoning allows up to 50 dwelling units per hectare (20 per acre), which would permit close to 250 condos. The site is currently vacant and no activity has taken place on the site for three years.

2197 Otter Point Road at Notts Creek This 8.6-hectare site across from the Municipal Hall was rezoned from Small Lot Residential Zone (RS-3) to High Density Multi-family Residential Zone (RM-4) in July 2007. The RM-4 zoning is to be rescinded to permit a 120-lot single family development, as there is no market for high density on this site.

Stone Ridge Estates This large phased development consists of a mixture of single family residences and townhouses. The project is located west of Otter Point Road off Beaton Road or north of Grant Road off French Road. Many of the building sites have excellent views and the development should appeal to above average incomes. Phase 1 consists of 52 single family lots of which 41 lots have sold to date. Lots are priced from $149,900 to $174,900 and construction is well underway. Phase 2 is located on an upper ridge and will contain an additional 90 single family lots. Houses on these view lots will have a minimum of 1,600 square feet with many over 2,000 square feet. There is one townhouse site with 20 units to be finished in the fall of 2010. A second townhouse site was dropped in favour of a strata development with 26 small single family dwellings priced at $370,000. These units are currently being marketed. The developer anticipates the project will have full build-out in 5 years. (Contact: Gerry Lamont 1-877-778-7575 #230)

Spiritwood - 7144 Maple Park Terrace This multi-phased project is proposed west of Stone Ridge Estates. Rezoning and a sewer extension have been approved. The project consists of 438 dwellings with approximately 108 single family dwellings the remainder multi-family in the form of townhouses of condos/apartments. Included in the total are 41 units of affordable housing.

6838 Grant Road – Draye Heights A 24-townhouse development is proposed for this site, which was rezoned to RM-2 in April 2007. The 8 units of Phase 1 have all been sold, which consist of 4 townhouses per building. Four of the 8 units of Phase 2 have been sold and the remaining 8 units of phase 3 are expected to be constructed within 8-10 months. Townhouses will average three bedrooms with an area of 1,400 square feet. Construction started about one year ago. The target market is 1st time buyers. (Contact: Jeff Shorter)

Lot A Grant Road A DP for 20 townhouses has been approved for this 0.55-hectare site at the northeast intersection of Grant and Gatewood Roads. A small creek bisects the site. Townhouses will be family oriented with three bedrooms and have an area of 1,000 to 1,200 square feet.

Sooke River Hotel (Bing properties) – 6309, 6353 and 6357 Belvista Place This 5.8-hectare site consists of four properties at the mouth of the Sooke River (right bank). The applicant, George Klumper, proposed a mixed use project with a potential of up to 160 single family dwelling units plus 600 multi-family units including high rise towers. The project is currently on hold as it is outside the sanitary sewerage service area. If this project proceeds, the mainly high-rise development would generate few elementary or secondary school students.

CTC-1 Zoned Sites A number of sites have been rezoned Town Centre Commercial (CTC-1). This zone is intended to provide for a wide range of commercial uses in the Town Centre. Residential uses are allowed as part of a mixed-use development above ground floor retail, office, shopping centre, artisan industry or other permitted use. Sites rezoned CTC-1 since 2007 include 2063 Townsend Road, 2069 Townsend Road, 2092 Church Road, 6527 Sooke Road, and 6797 Grant Road. These sites are generally quite small in area and could proceed with commercial development only and no residential component. Development Permits were issued for two of these sites consisting of 31 condos with a commercial component at 6527 Sooke Road and 29 condos at

Appendix D


2063 Townsend Road but both have since expired. A new Development Permit application for a mixed us project at 2063 Townsend Road with 10 condos (compared to 29 previously) was made in August 2010. In general, the demand for condos on small infill sites has been very limited. Furthermore, the unit size (typically one and two bedrooms) and development form (not ground oriented) will attract few families with school age children.

Poirier Elementary Catchment Area Church Hill Meadows Approximately 250 single family lots plus 80 townhouses were approved in 2005 with an expected build out in 2013. Approximately 50 single family lots remain unbuilt. This project is located east of Church Road and west of Journey Middle School. Construction is in the fourth phase with lots starting at $139,900. This development is actively under construction. One multi-family site with an area of 1.1 hectares remains undeveloped. This site at the end of Church Hill Drive is zoned RM-2, which allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/hectare. This could accommodate up to 33 townhouses. (Contact: Shayne Fedosenko 250-384-8124). Marketing is geared to first time home buyers.

Woodland Creek – Arronwood Drive Woodland Creek consists of a phased single family and townhouse development located on the east side of Church Road immediately north of the Church Hill Meadows development. At full build-out, the project will have 121 single family lots plus 80 townhouses. The current Phase 3B consists of 29 single family lots and is planned to be registered in the summer of 2010. 24 single family lots remain in the last phase of single family development. Current marketing is appealing mainly to young families. Approximately 52 single family lots remain in future phases. One townhouse site has been constructed. The Alders consists of 23 three-bedroom units with areas between 1,664 and 1,729 square feet. A second townhouse site with 57 units is proposed. The RM-2 zoning allows townhouses and apartments to a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/hectare (12 units/acre). The developer is Totangi Forestry Ltd. (Contact: Bruce MacMillan 250-642-4100). Build out is expected in approximately 3 years. About 75% of the homes have school children in them. A selling feature of the development is that it is only a block to both middle and elementary schools.

Ponds Terraces – 2248 + 2253 Townsend Road Approximately 35 townhouses are proposed on these two sites east of the municipal hall. The site is zoned RM-3, which permits townhouses or apartments to a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per hectare. One site has a DP but is not built and the other site is inactive.

2432 Otter Point Road RS-2 zoning has been proposed for this 2.1-hectare panhandle lot with access on Otter Point Road. This represents a potential of 30 single family lots. . However this development is on hold as it is outside the sanitary sewer service area.

Helgeson/Felderof This 2.0 hectare site at the end of Helgesen and Felderhof Roads is adjacent to a very active residential development area. The proposed RS-3 zoning would accommodate approximately 37 single family lots. However this development is on hold as it is outside the sanitary sewer service area.

Lot A Tara Place This small .58-acre site north of the Municipal Hall was rezoned RM-4 several years ago for multi-family development up to 90 dwelling units per hectare. Although the zoning would have allowed a 21-unit apartment building, there was no market for this density in this single family area and the site was later rezoned for 3 single family dwellings.

Appendix D


John Muir Elementary Catchment Area Csinos – 1869 Maple Avenue South and 1869 Tominny Road Twenty single family lots zoned RS-2 have been approved. This zoning permits minimum lot areas of 350 m2 (maximum of 50%) and 500 m2 for the balance of single family lots. Ten houses have been completed or are under construction.

1999 Maple Avenue South Rezoning for RS-3 is proposed for a 0.8-hectare site in order to accommodate 15 compact single family lots.

6881 Galaxie Drive Rezoning to RM3 is proposed for a 26-unit townhouse project.

Erinan Country Estates – 7294 West Coast Road This 63 lot single family subdivision is located at the northwest intersection of West Coast Road and Grant Road. The closest part of this site is within 100 metres of the John Muir Elementary School. The site is fully serviced with large minimum lot areas of 1,300 m2, many with excellent waterfront views. No houses have been constructed to date. Lots are priced between $160,000 and $204,900. The location at the western edge of Sooke is a disadvantage for commuters as it is closer to Otter Point than Sooke.

Heron View Villas – 6995 Nordin Road Located at 6995 Nordin Road, this 91-townhouse project consists of a 4.0-hectare waterfront site that is long and narrow. The first two of eight phases with a total of 22 units is nearing completion. Eleven units (50%) of these units have been sold but none are occupied to date. The 3BR townhouses are large with areas from 2,000 sq. ft to 2,933 sf and are selling for $450,000 to $800,000. The sales agent reported 3 children in the initial 11 buyers. Build-out could occur within five years or more depending on market conditions. (Contacts: Gerry Lamont 1-877-778-7575 #230 and Jacqui Thompson 1-877-553-9601)

6987 West Coast Road Propose rezoning is from R1 to RS 2 accompanied by a strata subdivision for 11 single family lots.

7010 Wright Road Up to 90 dwelling units per hectare in the form of townhouses or apartments had been proposed for this long and narrow 0.8-hectare site off Whiffen Spit Road. The current proposal is for 23 compact single family lots with a minimum site area of 350 m2.

Saseenos Elementary Catchment Area 1505 Gillespie Road This rural site next to Roche Cove Regional Park is now zoned for approximately 30 large single family lots. The site will be serviced with wells and septic tanks.

Grouse Nest – 1424 Gillespie Road This 35.5-hectare site is located in southeast Sooke. The property has water frontage along the Sooke Basin but is hilly and lacks infrastructure. A comprehensive residential development would comply with the Regional Growth Strategy but the site lacks services. An application has been made to include the property in the area with sanitary sewerage but this would involve an extension of approximately seven kilometers or on-site treatment. This proposal has been inactive since 2007.

Silver Spray Drive Silver Spray is in East Sooke across the Sooke Harbour from Whiffen Spit Park. The mixed-use development includes 127 residential lots, a sheltered marina, executive 9-hole golf course, and destination resort and spa. Single family lots range from 0.2 to 1.0 hectares with prices starting at $219,000. Municipal water is provided with septic tanks or off-site sewage disposal depending on site conditions. Approximately 40 lots have been sold to date. Two houses have been built to date with three under construction. Typical purchasers are baby boomers approaching retirement or persons wanting a second recreational property. Purchasers have no time limit for constructing a house. (Sales agent 778-896-3370)

Appendix D


Future Trends Future development is expected to be concentrated within the Community Growth Area where municipal water and sanitary sewerage services are provided. The two main residential growth areas, Sunriver Estates and east of Church Road, are expected to be close to full build-out by the 2014-2015 school year. Infill potential is large as is the developable land potential west of Otter Point Road. Urban development in the Saseenos Elementary catchment east of the Sooke River is unlikely due to the lack or services and amenities.

District of Sooke Contacts: Katherine Lesyshen, Associate Planner and Municipal Planner Gerald Christie, District of Sooke (250-642-1634).

T’Sou-ke 1 (Sooke 1) and T’Sou-ke 2 (Sooke 2) Indian Reserves The T’Sou-ke 1 is reserve is located adjacent to the Saseenos Elementary School while the T’Sou-ke 2 reserve is located to the south of John Muir Elementary School between West Coast Road and the Juan de Fuca Strait. Currently, T’Sou-ke 1 has 39 private dwellings with a population of approximately 90 and a median age of 36. T’Sou-ke 2 has 47 private dwellings with an estimated population of 125 and a median age of 25. The total area of the two reserves is 87.2 hectares. The total on-reserve population as of December 2008 was 221 people. There are no plans for major residential development on either T’Sou-ke 1 or T’Sou-ke 2. (Contact Michelle Thut, Acting Administrator 250-642-3957)

Juan de Fuca Electoral Area

General Comments Most of the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area is within the Sooke School District. The area is geographically dispersed and includes East Sooke and the lands west of the District of Sooke from Otter Point to Port Renfrew. The 2006 population estimate was 4,652, a 23.2% increase over the decade. Over the past decade, approximately 10% of all single family building permits in the Sooke School District have been from the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. Single family residential permits averaging 45 each year were issued ranging from a low of 27 in 2009 to 75 in 2006. The Regional Growth Strategy anticipates the population of the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area will increase to 6,500 by 2026, an annual increase of 1.7%. Indications are the number of school children resulting from residential development in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area will be very low.

The Juan de Fuca area contains large private tracts of timberlands. In January 2007, the Minister of Forests and Range approved the removal of approximately 28,000 hectares of private land from three coastal tree farm licenses. This particularly affected Western Forest Products, TimberWest and other forest companies with large landholdings between the District of Sooke and Port Renfrew.

This land use change was controversial and led the CRD, which is responsible for zoning in unorganized areas, to pass a series of six bylaw amendments. The amending bylaws increased the minimum parcel size in the Forestry Zone from 4 hectares to 120 hectares and created a new Rural B zone, also with a minimum parcel size of 120 hectares. The purpose of the bylaw amendments was to block the development of those lands that were removed from the tree farm licenses until the CRD had sufficient time to undertake appropriate land use planning. Western Forest Products and the Association of BC Landowners took the CRD to court on the grounds that these six bylaws were illegally passed. On December 23, 2008, the Supreme Court quashed the six bylaws. However the CRD subsequently adopted an OCP in March 2010, which reinstated a minimum 120-hectare lot size for lands, designated Rural Resource. This affects the vast majority of the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area west of the District of Sooke except Otter Point, Shirley Jordan River and Port Renfrew. Most development has taken place within the four water districts: Shirley-Jordan River, East Sooke, Port Renfrew and Kemp Lake (Otter Point). This is expected to continue.

Otter Point, on the west side of the District of Sooke, has the largest population in this area; approximately 1,800. An OCP review is commencing there. In addition to infill activity and De Mamiel Estates as noted below, the CRD planner indicated that developments are proposed on a 40-hectare and a 226-hectare along Otter Point Road.

Appendix D


Shirley-Jordan River to the west of Otter Point has a much smaller population of around 400 persons. Western Forest Products is the major landowner in this area and is currently selling large sites, typically over 20 hectares in area.

Specific Developments by Elementary Catchment Area

John Muir Elementary Catchment Area De Mamiel Creek Estates – Otter Point This is an above average single family development off Otter Point Road close to the District of Sooke. Lots have been selling at a minimum of $167,000 with most closer to $200,000. Only five of 45 lots remain unbuilt. The minimum lot area is 0.8 hectares. The owner anticipated in 2007 that only five of the first 29 houses constructed would have children, mainly of high school age. In August 2008, the realtor for this development indicated the trend of few school age children continued. (Contact: Don Burnham 250-478-9600) Given its proximity to the District of Sooke, it is likely that developments further to the west will have even fewer school children.

Canadian Horizons – Otter Point A 200-lot development is proposed for the Otter Point area by Canadian Horizons. Proposed lot areas will range from 1,000 m2 to 0.8 hectares on this 226-hectare site.

Port Renfrew Elementary Catchment Area Three Point Properties – Port Renfrew Three Point Properties acquired a 182-hectare development site in Port Renfrew in 2007. In return for development rights, Three Point Properties made a commitment to an expansion of sewage treatment facilities and for community water in Port Renfrew. The first development phase consisted of 30 serviced lots next to the existing Port Renfrew Elementary School. These were sold, mainly for recreational fishermen and for investment purposes. A current 40-lot development of small cottages is underway, also for recreational purposes. The number of school children is expected to be minimal. Three Point Properties anticipates future development phases could accommodate 700 to 800 additional lots. This development is within the Port Renfrew Official Community Plan and is not affected by the minimum lot size of 120 hectares. (Contacts: Ross Tennant 250-and Ben Mycroft 250-413-8604)

Brown’s Mountain – Port Renfrew A total of 60 units are proposed consisting of 30 single family dwellings plus 30 recreational rental lodges.

Silver Spray The District of Sooke boundaries were expanded to take in this development located in East Sooke. This enabled municipal water to be extended across the Sooke Inlet. Description of this project in the Saseenos Elementary Catchment Area is under the District of Sooke. CRD Contact: June Klassen, Manager, Local Area Planning (250-642-1500 #206)

City of Colwood

General Comments Colwood has experienced significant population growth since 2006. The latest population estimate by BC Stats was 16,174 that represented an annual growth rate of nearly 2.0 % for the past three years. Over the past decade, however, the rate of growth was much lower as it was less than the average for the Sooke School District. A lack of sanitary services in south Colwood has hindered numerous developments in recent years. However this will be less of a factor in the coming years.

Appendix D


The Royal Bay project is the largest ground oriented project in Colwood. LeHigh Cement has owned it with priority given to its on-site aggregate resources. After gravel has been removed from specific areas, blocks of land were sold to various property developers based on an overall plan. The owners are now in the process of selling the entire site as no further gravel removal is proposed. Until this takes place and the new owners plans are crystallized, there will be some uncertainty over the timing of future development. A large number of condos are currently being proposed. Most are high-rise developments proposed in the eastern part of the city. None have started construction to date. When and if they proceed, the nature of development in Colwood will change significantly. However the housing type, unit size and target market indicate these projects are not likely to lead to a significant change in school enrolment.


Wishart Elementary Catchment Area Royal Bay This is a very large and comprehensive development consisting of several phases. A total of 2,800 units have been approved on this large site in south Colwood. The current owner, Lehigh Cement, is in the process of completing the sale of the property to a land development company. Until recently, servicing issues have also affected Royal Bay. However this constraint has been overcome. All services are now in place and zoning approvals have been received.

The Hatley, Delora, Woods and Bluffs subdivisions are now complete. Phase 1 in the overall concept consisted of 650 single family and townhouse residential units and has been largely built out. Phase 2 is underway, which comprises a total of 1,500 residential units including an oceanfront village and secondary school site. Phase 2A consists of 174 single family lots and Phase 2B contains 3 townhouse sites. Most of the development to date has been in treed locations or with good view potential allowing these lots to command a premium price. Future phases of the development are likely to be more affordable. This is because the locations will be more centrally located and with lower elevations where active gravel mining has taken place. As a consequence, these lots will lack mature tree cover or views. Another factor is the new OCP supports higher a density on this prime site. However any rezoning to take advantage of the allowable densities in the 2008 OCP must comply with a housing policy that requires 10% of ground oriented housing to be affordable. This poses a challenge, as the existing development to date has been high end. A current zoning application for 160 dwelling units has been applied for compared to 80 under the existing zoning. This Phase 4 development is located north of the new secondary school site.

The Royal Bay development area is expected to take 20 years before reaching full build-out. This could result in 100 ground oriented dwelling units per year for the 20 years.

Andrex – Haida Drive and Cottyn Way This single family development consists of a 7 lot cul de sac on Cottyn Way east of Veterans Memorial Parkway plus 50 lots on Haida Drive to the west of Veterans Memorial Parkway. Construction started several years ago but the rate of development has been slow. This is one of the few projects in Colwood where individual serviced lot sales have taken place. Most serviced lots are sold in groups to builders.

Latoria Walk Latoria Walk is northwest of the intersection of Latoria Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. The project includes 65 single family dwellings, 48 patio homes, 10 townhouses, 69 condos in three low rise buildings in phase 1, and 34 condos over commercial for a total of 226 dwellings. Most of the project is complete and full build out is expected in two years (2011-2012). The remaining units consist of 18 patio homes (2,200-3,257 sf) to be phased in over two years, 5 brownstones this fall and a further 5 in 2011, and finally, the 34 condos in the mixed-use project. These residential units are expected to appeal to a broad range of consumers, from young professionals to retirees. Prices for the comprehensive project range from $219,000 to $800,000. (Contact: Greg Long 1-800-665-5303)

Appendix D


Claudette Court This 21 lot subdivision is in a largely development area near Sunheights Park west of Veterans Memorial Parkway. Only 5 lots, typically 700 m2 in area, remain unsold. Serviced lot prices ranged from $190,000 to $220,000.

Hans Helgesen Elementary Catchment Area Olympic View This project south of Latoria Road consists of 56 hectares in Colwood and 52 hectares in Langford. A total of 930 dwelling units had been proposed with 456 located in Colwood. The initial phase was proposed to consist of 60 single family houses in Colwood with full build-out consisting of 326 single family sites plus 346 townhouses in a family oriented setting. The developers had proposed several towers but this is likely to change as the project has been inactive for three years and the demand for high-rise towers in this setting is questionable. The proposed development would be on both the Colwood and Langford sides of an existing golf course located mainly in Metchosin. The project lacks services and is currently on hold.

Evergreen Rise - 517 and 535 Latoria Road Development of these lots will begin in September 2010; full build out is expected within two years. In 2005, the mix was anticipated to be 35 single family dwellings plus 36 townhouses; however, the project has been changed to a total of 59 single family lots.

The price range is $249,000 to 290,000 in the first phase and $300,000 to 350,000 in the second phase. (Contact: Chuck Meagher 250-477-1100)

591, 595 and 595A Latoria Road Comprehensive Development zoning is proposed for a mixed-use building with 29 rental apartment units, retail space and a brewpub and three condominium buildings with 36 units each. The phased development by Latoria Properties Ltd is a revision from a 2007 proposal.

Pondview – 3650 Propeller Place This development in southeast Colwood is on a hill adjacent to the District of Metchosin. Access is off Pelican Drive west of Metchosin Road. The project consists of 50 mid priced townhouses. The project is under construction with some completed units.

Latoria Walk – Bezanton Road Lamont Land is proposing a 28 single family development south of Latoria Drive near Latoria Walk. The site is zoned and the subdivision is in the process of being registered. Servicing will be completed in January 2011. The developer expects all lots to be sold in 2011. Lamont Land has two active developments in the District of Sooke, Heron View Villas and Stone Ridge Estates. (Contact: Gerry Lamont 1-877-778-7575 #230)

Other Latoria Drive Two other sites south of Latoria Road each have a potential of 120 single family lots.

Sangster Elementary Catchment Area Aquattro Estates Limited Partner, Aquattro Estates GP Inc. and Colwood Lagoon Holdings Inc. (formerly Lagoon Estates) This is a large project consisting of 660 townhouse and apartment units on a 19.2-hectare site between Royal Roads University and the lagoon. The bulk of the housing was proposed to be clustered in low-rise towers between 4 and 6 storeys and terrace units of up to 4 storeys. Three mid-rise towers with 12 storeys were also proposed. No single family dwelling were proposed and the only ground oriented housing consisted of 66 townhouses. The entire project was a phased strata development. Three lowrise apartments and one townhouse building for a total of 88 units were constructed before the project went into receivership. Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed receiver in February 2010 and is attempting to sell the project as a single entity. If

Appendix D


the development proceeds, it is unlikely to result in many additional school children despite the large size of the project.

3479 Wishart Road This 2.8-hectare vacant site on Wishart Road south of Dressler road is adjacent to Royal Bay. A development with 100 townhouses has been proposed for this prime site.

John Stubbs Elementary Catchment Area City Centre Colwood This is a $1-billion plus development on a 5.6-hectare site, formerly occupied by a strip mall called Colwood Corners south and east of Sooke Road. The project headed by Les Bjola includes more than 70,000 m2 of office and retail space. Eleven low and highrise buildings (12 to 29 storeys), assisted living accommodations, condominiums, townhomes, hotels, a community arts and cultural centre and retail space are proposed. The flexible zoning will accommodate up to 70% residential or 70% retail/office uses. Approximately 1,800 residential condos are proposed at full build-out with construction starting in the spring of 2011. The developer anticipates market absorption of 250 units in four years with occupancy starting in 2012. Related projects by the same developer are proposed nearby on Wale and Wilfert Roads. The Silkwind was proposed in 2008 consisting of a 23-storey condominium with 150 two-bedroom units. With prices starting at $550,000 and areas between 1,071 and 1,215 square feet, the project featured numerous urban amenities. Although completion was originally planned for 2010, foundation excavation has occurred but no building construction has taken place (August 2010). A large assisted living project is also proposed for the Colwood City Centre. Despite the large overall project size, very few school age children are anticipated from any aspects of this project as no single family dwellings and few townhouses are proposed. (Contact: Adam Gant. 250-920-8003)

Future Trends District staff are very supportive of development and are welcoming new initiatives. The lack of sanitary services for development in south Colwood along Latoria Road has held back development but this constraint is being addressed. A significant number of mid and high-rise developments are proposed in the Colwood Corners area. There is more uncertainty about these high-density projects than lower density ground oriented projects. If these high-density projects proceed, they will not be marketed to families with school age children. Despite the large number of potential units, a very low number of school age children should be anticipated from these projects. On the other hand, significant family oriented development is anticipated in south Colwood from several projects along Latoria Drive and from the Royal Bay lands following new ownership. City of Colwood contact: Director of Planning, Alan Haldenby (250-478-5999 #135)

City of Langford

General Comments Langford’s 2009 population was 23,513, over one third of the total within the Sooke School District. In 2006, the population was 23,513, which indicates an annual growth rate of 5.1%, one of the highest in BC. Langford’s growth rate has accelerated since 1996 as the population growth for the 5 year period from 1996 to 2001 was 8.0% rising to 13.1% from 2001 to 2006. Langford was not only the most populated jurisdiction but also the larger driver of growth in the Western Communities. Langford is very welcoming of development and has made some significant changes to its OCP to accommodate development initiatives. The attitude is that Langford is open for business and wants to attract new development in order to increase its tax base and fund a wider range of services for its residents. Key municipal objectives are to appeal to families and provide needed community amenities. The 2008 OCP has identified the key growth areas for the City of Langford as follows:

Appendix D


City Centre- Downtown Langford This is a major regional growth centre that supports a wide range of high-density housing, including affordable and rental housing.

Village Centres - Bear Mountain and Westhills The two designated village centres are predominantly residential precincts that support a wide range of high and moderate density housing, including affordable and rental housing.

Neighbourhood Centres These are predominantly residential precincts that support a range of medium and high-density housing, including affordable and rental housing. Schools, community facilities and other institutional uses also define neighbourhood centres when supported by housing and services in close proximity. Policy 3.9.3 allows an overall density objective of 40 units per hectare (16 units per acre) for infill development in Neighbourhood designated areas. Objective 3.7 allow for the emergence of new neighbourhoods areas and/or centres and areas in all parts of the community.

Hillside or Shoreline development areas These are predominantly residential precincts that support a range of clustered low, medium and high density housing choices including secondary suites. Higher building forms, such as point towers, will be permitted on hillsides to maximize open space provided some conditions are satisfied. Schools, community facilities and other institutional uses are permitted throughout the area.

Key growth areas are Downtown Langford (Goldstream Avenue between Veterans Memorial Parkway and Jacklin Road), Bear Mountain (north of Highway 1), south central Langford (off Latoria Road and Happy Valley Road) and west Langford (Westhills and Kettle Creek).


Lakewood Elementary Catchment Area Bear Mountain This 5,000-unit project north of Highway 1 is accessed off Millstream Road. The vast majority of the proposed development is proposed to take place in Langford although a small part will occur in the District of Highlands. The project commenced early this decade, primarily consisting of single family dwellings. Phase 1 was anticipated to take 10 years but was completed in 4 years. Bear Mountain has typically marketed 200-300 units per year. It has catered to an upscale market that enabled the company to achieve premium prices based on a wide range of amenities including a prestigious golf course, view lots and a full range of commercial services. Earlier this year, however, Bear Mountain defaulted on loans and was placed under creditor protection in March 2010. Current marketing is confined to completed condo and townhouse projects. The new CEO is examining the potential of the resort's real estate on Skirt Mountain and will develop a long-term strategy with the aim is to sell assets in the next few years. Although there is considerable uncertainty at present, the Bear Mountain development has reached a critical mass and is expected to proceed to full build-out. The time frame, however, is uncertain.

A total of 1,400 dwelling units have been constructed to date. Most of the remaining development will consist of condos and mixed-use projects. Approximately 30%-40% of the development (1,500 lots) will consist of single family dwellings. The remainder will mainly condos (high-rise and low rise) while townhouses will total between 100 and 150 units (3%).

Bakerview Heights Phase 11 – Greenhill Rise In this development, 22 3BR townhouses are under construction with 21 townhouses recently completed along Greenhill Rise off Longspur Drive west of Millstream Road.

Appendix D


2381-2189 Fleetwood Court (Z-07-06) Application to rezone from R2 to RS2 is to allow a 17-lot single family subdivision south of Lakewood Elementary School.

2382 Setchfield Avenue (Z-07-44) Application to rezone 2382 Setchfield Avenue from the R2 to the RM7 zone in order to allow for the development of 20 townhouses.

2454 Setchfield Avenue (Z-07-05) Application is to rezone from R2 to RS2 to allow for a 19-lot subdivision.

Prospector Way A 14-lot high-end single family subdivision is proposed east of Florence Lake starting this fall. Expected build-out in this largely completed area is one to two years. (Contact: Todd Mahovlich 250-477-5353)

2500 Florence Lake Road (Z-07-37) This property is currently zoned RH1 and is used as a mobile home park. The applicants plan to rezone and subdivide 2500 Florence Lake Road in order to create 26 small lots and a 50 unit seniors' apartment building. The plan proposes the relocation of twenty mobile home pads to new locations within the park. The rest of the mobile homes will be left as they are.

2150 Millstream Road (Z-06-07) Application is to rezone from GB1 (Greenbelt 1) to RS2 (Residential Small Lot 2) and R2 (One- and Two- Family Residential) to allow a 15 - lot residential development.

2251 Millstream Road (Z-06-02) Application is to rezone from R2 to RM2 to allow for the development of a 19 unit detached townhouse complex.

2605 Millstone Drive (Z-07-22) Rezoning application from R2 to RS2 is for a 9-lot single family subdivision.

South Skirt Mountain Rezoning for 3,269 residential units was approved in 2009 on an 86.4-hectare site between Highway and Bear Mountain. The Forest Action Network launched a legal challenge of this development on procedural and environmental grounds in March 2010. Notwithstanding any legal challenge, the development will require a new interchange on Highway 1 that is partially constructed. Due to the large capital costs for servicing and infrastructure, an early start to this project is not anticipated. South Skirt Mountain and Bear Mountain are interconnected physically in terms of adjacency and the need for new Highway 1 interchange.

Millstream Elementary Catchment Area La Vie – 623 Trainor Ave. This 89 four-storey condo project is located across from the Millstream Elementary School and next to the main large format commercial area serving the CRD’s western communities. The project was completed in 2009 with approximately 35 units remaining to be sold. The 2 bedroom units have a starting price of $239,000. The project appeals mainly to older couples wanting to downsize with no reported sales to families with school age children. (Contacts: Scott Kral and Roger Levesque 250-474-4800)

Willway Elementary Catchment Area Kettle Creek Station This project is located on the west side of Langford Lake. The project will have about 500 residential units that will be brought to the market in six phases. The focus of the project is affordability with typical single family 2BR and 3BR units under 1,200 sf and priced between $340,000 and $405,000. The first phase has been sold out and the second is almost sold out. To date, 79 single family homes have been constructed with future phases to include attached dwellings. The third phase with 28 homes will contain geothermal heating

Appendix D


and cooling. A 5-year build-out is proposed. The project has been designed to appeal to first time homebuyers and those moving down in the detached home market. Neighbourhoods will have varying mixes of cottage homes, attached homes, lofts, neighbourhood retail and recreational opportunities. Turner Lane Development Corp., developer of Bear Mountain, is undertaking the project.

Happy Valley Elementary Catchment Area Valley View Estates Located off Happy Valley Road in south west Langford, Valley View Estates is now in the final two Phases (there appear to be 6 in total) of a 160 lot subdivision of single family homes. A park is now complete with a little league baseball diamond, concession, basketball court and play area for kids. Phase IV has one remaining lot. Phase III has been sold out. As of June 2010, 50 lots remain unsold and unfinished. The development is expected to be built out in 2 years. Houses are priced from $549,000.

982-984 Firehall Creek Road (DP-09-04) The Development Permit application is for an intensive residential 9 small lot project with semi attached dwellings.

Boulder Ridge – 3349, 3355, and 3361 Happy Valley Road (Z-10-06) Comprehensive zoning was approved for a 159 mixed unit development consisting of 89 single family dwellings plus two apartment buildings with 70 units.

3350 Happy Valley Road (Z-07-29) Application to rezone 3350 Happy Valley Road from GR2 to RS3 in order to allow a 9-lot subdivision.

3365 Happy Valley Road (Z-09-05) Application is to rezone to RM2A (Attached Housing) to allow the construction of 22 attached townhouses.

3385 Happy Valley Road (Z-10-05) Rezoning application is to create 12 RS3 lots and 11 fee simple townhouses.

3458 Happy Valley Road (Z-06-32) Proposed rezoning from AG1 to R2 is to create 11 fee-simple lots.

936 Flatman Avenue - McCormick Meadows Zoning for a 501 unit residential development on a 14-hectare site off Flatman Avenue on the east side of Happy Valley Road was approved earlier this spring. The initial phase consists of 16 single family lots in a 102-lot subdivision. The large lots range from 530 m2 to over 800 m2 and are zoned for secondary suites and carriage houses (detached accessory dwellings on the same property). Lots are priced from $270,000 to $309,000. Following development of the single family lots are 61 townhouses and 338 apartment condos up to 6 stories in height surrounding the single family development. (Contact: Jason Leslie 250-478-9600)

1018 Loma Linda Drive (Z-09-13) Rezoning from AG1 to R2A is to permit a 17-lot residential subdivision on the west side of Happy Valley Road in southwest Langford.

Olympic View This proposed development straddles the Cities of Langford and Colwood. Services are currently lacking and no applications have been received for subdivision or development permits. This project has been dormant for the past 3 years due to a lack of services and economic conditions. Some 450 residential units were proposed in the Langford portion of the development area but a text amendment has recently been received to expand the total to 930 dwellings. See additional write-up under City of Colwood.

Savory Elementary Catchment Area 245 Atkins Avenue (DP-10-23) This Development Permit application in a riparian area is for 28 single family bare land strata lots.

Appendix D


Ruth King Elementary Catchment Area 2815 - 2817 Jacklin Road and 2812-2018 Jacobson Road (DP-08-05) The owners are applying for a development permit for construction of two residential buildings south of Goldstream Avenue with one building fronting Jacobson Road and the other facing Jacklin Road with retail on the ground floor. The project has a total of 100 residential apartment and mixed-use units.

2710 Jacklin Road A 54-unit apartment building was recently constructed on this site.

2771 Jacklin Road (Z-09-14) A rezoning is proposed to construct a 131 unit seniors’ congregate care apartment building.

3296 Jacklin Road (Z-08-09) A 9-lot subdivision is proposed for this site.

906 Brock Avenue (DP-09-05A) A 43-unit apartment building with an additional 15 flex units (58 dwelling units in total) is under construction between Goldstream Avenue and Highway 1.

875 – 881 Brock Avenue (Z-06-34) Rezoning application is to allow the development of a 60-unit apartment building

2700 Strathmore Road (Z-06-34) The rezoning application is to allow the development of a 60-unit apartment complex one block east of Jacklin Road north of Goldstream Avenue.

The Granderson - 662 Goldstream Avenue A 59-unit apartment building consisting of one and two bedroom units is currently under construction.

770 Goldstream Avenue (Z-07-33) Rezoning application is to rezone the Westbrook Town Centre, which is located at 730-782 Goldstream Ave. The rezoning from C3 to a comprehensive mixed-use zone is to permit 6845 m2 of commercial and 20,636 m2 of residential development.

2732 Matson Road (Z-08-18) Rezoning from R2 to RM9 is to permit a four-storey, 19-unit residential building in close proximity to Ruth King Elementary School.

996 Preston Way (Z-09-23) Rezoning to MU1A is to permit the construction of a mixed-use building consisting of 63 affordable housing rental units, office space and a multi purpose studio/daycare west of Ruth King Elementary School and east of Spenser Middle School (2700 block Spenser Road)

2881 Peatt Road 28 apartments are under currently construction east of Jacklin Road.

2697 Peatt Road (Z-08-16) Rezoning application from R2 to MU1 has been made for a 61 unit residential development that will contain 7 live work lofts.

2700 block Peatt Road (Z-08-25) Rezoning application of three lots to allow 22 townhouses is proposed.

948 Dunford Avenue A 49-unit three-storey apartment is currently under construction on Dunford Avenue on the west side of Jacklin Road and east of Langford Lake. The 2BR units range from under 600-1,020 sf. The condos are priced under $300,000.

Appendix D


988 - 994 Dunford Avenue (Z-08-27) Rezoning from R2 to RM7A is proposed to allow the construction of a 3 storey 14-townhouse development. A Development Permit application has also been made.

David Cameron Elementary Catchment Area

Westhills The Westhills development south of Langford Lake is zoned for 6,000 residential dwellings. Access is from Langford Parkway west of Jacklin Road. The Westhills proposal received zoning approval from Langford Council in December 2006 and moved forward quickly with servicing. A major feature of this development is its emphasis on environmental protection with BuiltGreenTM standards for single family dwellings and LEEDSTM standard for multi-family developments. Single family dwellings are expected to comprise between 1,500 and 2,000 dwelling units at full build-out. The balance will be multi-family dwellings consisting townhouses and apartments including high-rise towers. These will take place primarily in the form of clustered multi-family developments ranging from low to high densities. The zoning allows for some flexibility in building forms in order to respond to changing market conditions; hence the range in the number of single family dwellings.

Lakeview Ridge was the first phase, consisting mainly of compact single family homes, townhouses and semi-detached dwellings. Lots are compact with most around 370 m2. Phase 1 is largely sold out with 122 completed dwellings. Units range from 1,430 sf to 3,520 sf although the vast majority is less than 2,300 sf in area. In addition to these areas, many units have legal secondary suites of 500 to 600 sf Most of the remaining 26 units are priced between $400,000 and $550,000. A new phase in Parkdale Court and Aredo Court consists of 74 units. In addition, Freshwater Crescent and Waterview Place contain an additional 50 units. Over the next two years, 400 single family dwellings are planned plus 150 townhouse and apartment units. The developer anticipates build-out will take place over 20 years. Although construction is actively underway, this is a very ambitious program considering it represents over 50% of Langford’s total annual residential absorption are based on the past decade’s performance. Contact: Rohan Rups 250-384-8024 #228)

911 Jenkins Avenue (Z-09-22) The zoning text amendment to the P1 zone will permit the construction of a 138 unit assisted living facility including a church west of Jacklin Road and north of Glen Lake.

Future Trends Strong residential growth is likely to continue. Lot sizes for single family developments have decreased resulting in typical areas of 250 m2 to 400 m2, much lower than a generation ago. Much of the large comprehensive developments taking place consist of multi-family uses, both ground oriented and apartments.

It is anticipated most lowrise apartment, mid-rise and high-rise residential towers will take place as the Langford Town Centre area continues to redevelop and in the Bear Mountain Village Centre. Ground oriented residential development will eventuate in a variety of locations with a majority in four areas: Westhills south of Langford Lake, Kettle Creek west of Langford Lake, Bear Mountain north of Highway 1 and in southwest Langford off Happy Valley and Latoria Roads.

Contacts: Leanne Blackwood, Senior Long Range Planner and Matthew Baldwin, City Planner (250-474-6919)

E DETAILED ESTIMATES

OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Estimate of Future Housing for Sooke School District Appendix E

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • Finalized August 2010 SSD report figures.xlsx • SSD housing • Page 1 of 3

SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP TotalJuan de Fuca Renfrew Port Renfrew Elementary 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 150Juan de Fuca John Muir Off Otter Point Road (Juan de Fuca) De Mamiel Creek Estates 5 5 5 5 Approved + mainly developedJuan de Fuca John Muir Unallocated, Juan de Fuca Electoral Area 100 100 100 100 100 100 300 300 Mostly Otter Point + Shirley Jordan RiverSooke John Muir 1869 Tomminy Road Csinos 20 20 20 20 RZ approvedSooke John Muir 6978 West Coast Rd 10 10 10 10 RS-2 ProposedSooke John Muir 7369 West Coast Rd Erinan Country Estates 20 20 20 20 23 23 63 63 R-1 approved servicedSooke John Muir 6995 Nordin Rd Heron View Villas 40 40 51 51 91 91 Under constructionSooke John Muir 7010 Wright Road 10 10 13 13 23 23 RS-3 approvedSooke John Muir Unallocated Sooke District 25 30 55 50 50 50 20 70 125 50 175Sooke Sooke Off Phillips Road Sunriver Estates 200 33 233 50 33 83 250 66 316 RZ approvedSooke Sooke 3070 Phillips Rd (north of Sunriver) Roberta Land et al 20 20 24 24 44 44 Under constructionSooke Sooke 6402 + 6418 Sooke Road 50 50 50 50 100 100 RM-3 approved DP applicationSooke Sooke 6527 Sooke Road Harbour View 31 31 31 31 RZ + DP approvedSooke Sooke 6569 Sooke Road Mariner's Village 16 33 49 34 100 134 50 107 157 100 240 340 RZ approvedSooke Sooke 2063 Townsend Rd Al Steenbergen 10 10 10 10 RZ approved, new DP applicationSooke Sooke 2113/2119 Charters Road 80 80 64 64 144 144 RZ approvedSooke Sooke 2197 Otter Point Rd Notts Creek 40 40 40 40 40 40 120 120 RM-4 will be rescinded to RS-3Sooke Sooke Beaton Road Stone Ridge Estates 50 20 70 57 57 107 20 127 Under constructionSooke Sooke 7144 Maple Park Terrace Spiritwood 58 50 108 50 100 150 108 150 258 RZ approvedSooke Sooke 2044 Gatewood Road (add RM-4) 25 25 25 25 Under constructionSooke Sooke 6800 Grant Rd Clearbrook Estates 28 28 28 28 Under constructionSooke Sooke 6828 Grant Rd West Draye Heights 12 12 12 12 RM-3 proposed inactiveSooke Sooke 6838 Grant Rd West Draye Heights 8 8 8 8 Under constructionSooke Sooke Lot A Grant Rd 20 20 20 20 DP approvedSooke Sooke 2066 Maple Avenue 11 11 11 11 RM-3 application inactiveSooke Sooke 2035/39/43 Maple Ave 12 12 12 12 24 24 RM-3 approvedSooke Sooke 1919 Maple Ave The Maples 12 12 12 12 Under constructionSooke Sooke 6881 Galaxie Rd 26 26 26 26 RM-3 DP approved Sooke Sooke Grant/Caldwell Roads 10 10 10 10 20 20 Small infillSooke Sooke 1998 Caldwell Road 12 12 12 12 RM-2 application inactiveSooke Sooke Unallocated, Sooke Elementary 15 15 20 20 50 50 85 85Sooke Poirier 2271 Church Rd Church Hill Meadows 30 33 63 20 20 50 33 83 RZ approvedSooke Poirier Church Rd./ Arranwood Drive Woodland Creek 22 23 45 30 57 87 52 80 132 RZ approvedSooke Poirier 2248 + 2253 Townsend Road Ponds Terraces 35 35 35 35 RM-3 approvedSooke Poirier Lot A Tara Place 3 3 3 3 RZ approvedSooke Poirier Helgeson/ Felderof Rds 37 37 37 37 RS-2 application on holdSooke Poirier 2432 Otter Point Rd 30 30 30 30 RS-2 application on holdSooke Poirier Unallocated, Poirier Elementary 10 10 20 20 20 20 50 50Sooke Saseenos 1505 Gillespie Rd East Sooke 10 10 10 10 20 20 RZ approvedSooke Saseenos Silver Spray Dr East Sooke 20 20 20 20 20 20 60 60 Under constructionSooke Saseenos Unallocated, Saseenos Elementary 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 30Highlands Lakewood Off Hannington Road Hannington Creek Estates 9 9 9 9 Under ConstructionHighlands Lakewood Off Bear Mountain Parkway Bear Mountain 30 30 43 43 73 73 Zoning approvedHighlands Lakewood Unallocated, Lakewood Elementary 60 60 50 50 50 50 160 160 Rural infillMetchosin Hans Helgesen Manzanita Heights 9 9 9 9 SubdividedMetchosin Hans Helgesen La Bonne 4 4 4 4 Zoning approved

2020-2024 2010-2024Land Use Status

Local Government

Elementary School

Project Address Applicant/Project Name2010-2014 2015-2019



SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total2020-2024 2010-2024

Land Use StatusLocal Government

Elementary School


Metchosin Hans Helgesen Mallock Road 7 7 7 7 Subdivision proposedMetchosin Hans Helgesen Unallocated, Hans Helgesen Elementary 60 60 75 75 75 75 210 210 Rural infillColwood Hans Helgesen 3650 Propeller Place Pondview 50 50 50 50 Under constructionColwood Hans Helgesen 517 + 535 Latoria Road Evergreen Rise 59 59 59 59 Subdivision approvedColwood Hans Helgesen Bezanton Road Lamont Land 28 28 28 28 Zoning approved, Subdivision applicationColwood Hans Helgesen Other Latoria Drive 60 60 60 60 120 120 PotentialColwood Hans Helgesen South of Latoria Road Olympic View 60 50 110 60 50 110 Project on holdColwood Wishart Royal Bay Royal Bay 50 50 100 150 75 225 200 100 300 400 225 625 Approved planColwood Wishart Latoria Road by Veterans Memorial Pkwy Latoria Walk 28 34 62 28 34 62 Zoning approvedColwood Wishart Haida Drive + Cottyn Way Andrex 37 37 20 20 57 57 Under constructionColwood Wishart Claudette Court 5 5 5 5 Approved + servicedColwood Sangster North of Lagoon Road Aquattro Estates 20 20 30 50 80 50 50 50 100 150 Partial constructed and in receivershipColwood Sangster 3479 Wishart 50 50 50 50 100 100 Requires zoningColwood John Stubbs Sooke Road at Goldstream Turner Lane Developments 10 100 110 15 200 215 20 300 320 45 600 645 Spring 2011 construction proposedColwood Colwood Unallocated, Colwood Elementary 20 20 10 20 30 20 20 10 60 70 No specific projectsLangford Lakewood Off Bear Mountain Parkway Bear Mountain 150 150 300 240 20 300 560 240 30 300 570 630 50 750 1,430 Approved but under creditor protectionLangford Lakewood Greenhill Rise Bakerview Heights 22 22 22 22 Under constructionLangford Lakewood 2381-2389 Fleetwood Court 17 17 17 17 Rezoning applicationLangford Lakewood 2382 Setchfield Avenue 20 20 20 20 Rezoning applicationLangford Lakewood 2454 Setchfield Avenue 19 19 19 19 Rezoning applicationLangford Lakewood Prospector Way 14 14 14 14 Rezoning approvedLangford Lakewood 2500 Florence Lake Road 26 50 76 26 50 76 Rezoning applicationLangford Lakewood South Skirt Mountain Rezoning approved but timing uncertainLangford Lakewood Unallocated, Lakewood Elementary 10 10 15 15 15 15 40 40 Bear Mountain infillLangford Millstream 2150 Millstream Road 15 15 15 15 Rezoning applicationLangford Millstream 2251 Millstream Road 15 15 15 15 Rezoning applicationLangford Millstream 2605 Millstream Road 9 9 9 9 Rezoning applicationLangford Millstream 623 Trainor Avenue La Vie 35 35 35 35 Construction completed (35 unsold units)Langford Willway Kettle Creek Station Turner Lane Developments 221 50 271 100 50 150 321 100 421 Under constructionLangford Happy Valley Off Wild Ridge Way Happy Valley Estates 50 50 50 50 Under constructionLangford Happy Valley 982-984 Firehall Creek Road 9 9 9 9 Development Permit applicationLangford Happy Valley 3349, 3355 + 3361 Happy Valley Road Boulder Ridge 60 35 95 29 35 64 89 70 159 Zoning approvedLangford Happy Valley 3350 Happy Valley Road 9 9 9 9 Rezoning applicationLangford Happy Valley 3365 Happy Valley Road 22 22 22 22 Rezoning applicationLangford Happy Valley 3385 Happy Valley Road 12 11 23 12 11 23 Rezoning applicationLangford Happy Valley 3485 Happy Valley Road 11 11 11 11 Rezoning applicationLangford Happy Valley 936 Flatman Road McCormick Meadows 32 32 70 61 100 231 100 100 102 61 200 363 Zoning approvedLangford Happy Valley 1018 Loma Linda Drive 17 17 17 17 Rezoning applicationLangford Happy Valley South of Latoria Road Olympic View 90 60 150 90 60 150 Zoning text proposal to increase densityLangford Happy Valley Unallocated, Happy Valley Elementary 50 50 10 10 20 50 70 80 50 130Langford Savory 245 Atkins Avenue 28 28 28 28 Development Permit applicationLangford Savory Unallocated, Savory Elementary 20 30 50 20 40 60 20 40 60 60 110 170Langford Ruth King 2815-2817 Jacklin Road 50 50 50 50 100 100 Development Permit applicationLangford Ruth King 2771 Jacklin Road 131 131 131 131 Rezoning for congregate careLangford Ruth King 3296 Jacklin Road 9 9 9 9 Proposed subdivisionLangford Ruth King 906 Brock Avenue 58 58 58 58 Under construction



SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total SD TH AP Total2020-2024 2010-2024

Land Use StatusLocal Government

Elementary School


Langford Ruth King 875-881 Brock Avenue 60 60 60 60 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 2700 Strathmore Rd. 60 60 60 60 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 662 Goldstream Avenue The Granderson 59 59 59 59 Under constructionLangford Ruth King 770 Goldstream Avenue 75 75 100 100 175 175 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 2732 Matson Road 19 19 19 19 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 996 Preston Way 63 63 63 63 Rezoning application, affordable housingLangford Ruth King 2881 Peatt Road 28 28 28 28 Under constructionLangford Ruth King 2697 Peatt Road 61 61 61 61 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 2700 block Peatt Road 22 22 22 22 Rezoning applicationLangford Ruth King 948 Dunford Avenue 49 49 49 49 Under constructionLangford Ruth King 988-994 Dunford Avenue 14 14 14 14 Rezoning + DP applicationsLangford David Cameron 957 Langford Parkway Westhills 400 150 550 400 150 50 600 400 175 100 675 1,200 475 150 1,825 Zoning approved + under constructionLangford David Cameron 911 Jenkins Avenue 138 138 138 138 Assisted living proposal

Langford Crystal View Unallocated, Crystal View Elementary No development anticipatedSSD Total 2,105 819 1,293 4,217 1,889 858 1,056 3,803 1,795 941 1,032 3,768 5,789 2,618 3,381 11,788 785.9 annual average housing units

Subtotal, Milne Zone 650 314 43 1,007 599 367 131 1,097 513 366 107 986 1,762 1,047 281 3,090 206.0 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Belmont Zone 1,455 505 1,250 3,210 1,290 491 925 2,706 1,282 575 925 2,782 4,027 1,571 3,100 8,698 579.9 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Juan de Fuca Electoral Area 155 155 150 150 150 150 455 455 30.3 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, District of Sooke 495 314 43 852 449 367 131 947 363 366 107 836 1,307 1,047 281 2,635 175.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, District of Highlands 69 69 80 80 93 93 242 242 16.1 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, District of Metchosin 80 80 75 75 75 75 230 230 15.3 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, City of Colwood 207 150 134 491 240 190 250 680 320 240 350 910 767 580 734 2,081 138.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, City of Langford 1,099 355 1,116 2,570 895 301 675 1,871 794 335 575 1,704 2,788 991 2,366 6,145 409.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Port Renfrew Elementary 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 10.0 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, John Muir Elementary 180 70 250 180 51 231 186 20 206 546 141 687 45.8 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Sooke Elementary 325 188 43 556 259 259 131 649 150 311 107 568 734 758 281 1,773 118.2 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Poirier Elementary 65 56 121 70 57 127 87 35 122 222 148 370 24.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Saseenos Elementary 30 30 40 40 40 40 110 110 7.3 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Lakewood Elementary 305 42 200 547 335 20 300 655 348 30 300 678 988 92 800 1,880 125.3 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Hans Helgesen Elementary 167 50 217 135 135 195 50 245 497 100 597 39.8 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Wishart Elementary 120 50 34 204 170 75 245 200 100 300 490 225 34 749 49.9 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Sangster Elementary 20 20 80 50 130 50 50 100 150 100 250 16.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, John Stubbs Elementary 10 100 110 15 200 215 20 300 320 45 600 645 43.0 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Colwood Elementary 20 20 10 20 30 20 20 10 60 70 4.7 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Millstream Elementary 24 15 35 74 24 15 35 74 4.9 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Willway Elementary 221 50 271 100 50 150 321 100 421 28.1 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Happy Valley Elementary 181 42 223 140 61 135 336 139 110 135 384 460 213 270 943 62.9 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Savory Elementary 28 20 30 78 20 40 60 20 40 60 28 60 110 198 13.2 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Ruth King Elementary 9 36 713 758 150 150 9 36 863 908 60.5 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, David Cameron Elementary 400 150 138 688 400 150 50 600 400 175 100 675 1,200 475 288 1,963 130.9 annual average housing unitsSubtotal, Crystal View Elementary annual average housing units

Subtotals by zone

Subtotals by local government

Subtotals by elementary catchment

F ENROLMENT

FORECASTS FOR EACH SSD SCHOOL

The charts illustrate the following alternative forecasts:

2007 — the selected best enrolment forecast from the 2007 Update to the Long-Range Facilities Plan (thinner purple line).

Base — the Baragar base forecast ‘without local knowledge’ (blue line).

House — where warranted, this is the forecast based on estimating the student coming from anticipate new housing (red line).

Best — for a few schools we adjusted the ‘House’ or ‘Base’ forecast in response to local knowledge about the situation in the specific

catchment area (orange line).

Appendix F

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 17 SSD 2010 enrolment.xlsx • Charts • Page 1 of 8

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Belmont Secondary

2007

Base

House

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Edward Milne Secondary

2007

Base

House

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Dunsmuir Middle

2007

House

Base

Appendix F


enrolment dip due to Stubbs

the housing jump to 2010 is due to housing numbers

from 2014 onward 'house' seems about right

maybe adjust the short term forecast

may reduce house in longer term… yield rates

Ruth King reduction reduces Spencer by about 20 students in long term

Short term seems too high… closer to Base

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Journey Middle

2007

Base

House

550

650

750

850

950

1,050

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Spencer Middle

2007

Base

House

150

175

200

225

250

275

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Colwood Elementary

2007

Base

Appendix F


175

200

225

250

275

300

325

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Crystal View Elementary

2007

Base

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

David Cameron Elementary

2007

Base

House

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Hans Helgesen Elementary

2007

Base

House

Best

Appendix F


tending to selection of 'house'

check yield rates for TH and AP… may result in reducing house estimate

Short term seems too high… maybe longer term, too?

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Happy Valley Elementary

2007

Base

House

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

John Muir Elementary

2007

Base

House

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

John Stubbs (K-9)

2007

Base

House

Appendix F


200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Lakewood Elementary

2007

Base

House

Best

125

150

175

200

225

250

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Millstream Elementary

2007

Base

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

550

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Poirier Elementary

2007

Base

House

Appendix F


limited housing

select 'base'

perhaps increase base slightly like 2009 Best

seems about right

0

25

50

75

100

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Port Renfrew Elementary

2007

Base

250

300

350

400

450

500

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Ruth King Elementary

2007

Base

House

125

150

175

200

225

250

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Sangster Elementary

2007

Base

House

Appendix F


all estimates support each other

short term is too low… maybe higher in future, too?

75

100

125

150

175

200

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Saseenos Elementary

2007

Base

150

175

200

225

250

275

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Savory Elementary

2007

Base

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Sooke Elementary

2007

Base

House

Appendix F


150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Willway Elementary

2007

Base

House

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

Wishart Elementary

2007

Base

House

G SUMMARY OF

SELECTED ENROLMENT FORECASTS

Best Enrolment Forecast for Each SSD School Appendix G

Matrix Planning Associates 0665 • 2011 01 19 SSD report figures.xlsx • Enrolment

School 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Belmont Secondary 1,380 1,340 1,364 1,354 1,336 1,317 1,310 1,341 1,376 1,420 1,480 1,542 1,633 1,672 1,758 1,812Edward Milne Secondary 667 656 694 680 715 752 763 781 785 792 842 884 928 956 974 1,012Dunsmuir Middle 597 567 560 515 510 498 533 554 603 664 714 749 822 908 917 916Journey Middle 489 510 529 572 565 554 566 633 666 698 703 736 761 787 815 840Spencer Middle 678 638 603 595 601 621 618 649 681 735 783 821 879 945 963 980Colwood Elementary 188 179 189 197 209 226 231 229 234 230 234 234 234 234 235 236Crystal View Elementary 232 236 243 242 244 246 256 269 279 283 294 299 304 308 309 313David Cameron Elementary 320 334 341 349 357 385 399 417 435 453 477 502 526 548 568 590Hans Helegsen Elementary 188 184 204 205 221 234 252 254 270 281 289 294 300 307 313 321Happy Valley Elementary 299 324 365 394 417 438 454 468 484 489 513 530 551 569 590 609John Muir Elementary 168 181 188 187 197 215 215 220 231 241 254 258 266 273 279 282John Stubbs Elementary-Middle 681 772 773 801 830 845 879 916 940 979 1,006 1,040 1,059 1,093 1,108 1,123Lakewood Elementary 327 360 392 409 441 460 487 513 537 568 617 646 687 722 748 769Millstream Elementary 194 199 201 209 208 202 210 214 217 213 207 206 206 207 207 206Poirier Elementary 372 376 382 388 422 443 462 478 489 503 507 518 526 535 542 548Port Renfrew Elementary 16 14 12 13 12 10 12 13 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12Ruth King Elementary 259 282 282 306 338 371 403 428 444 471 479 487 489 490 488 487Sangster Elementary 174 172 171 179 178 190 182 186 192 196 197 201 204 208 211 214Saseenos Elementary 124 114 109 110 116 124 126 124 127 126 127 128 130 131 131 131Savory Elementary 173 173 188 190 209 211 222 229 237 238 248 247 248 249 251 251Sooke Elementary 201 217 218 229 224 223 245 251 262 275 287 298 308 319 326 335Willway Elementary 172 192 205 220 241 248 256 270 276 283 297 301 303 306 306 304Wishart Elementary 322 313 320 309 322 323 329 337 343 350 362 371 382 392 401 411

SSD Schools 8,221 8,333 8,533 8,653 8,913 9,136 9,410 9,774 10,119 10,499 10,929 11,304 11,758 12,171 12,452 12,702

H CAPACITY UTILIZATION

PROFILES FOR SSD SCHOOLS

H1. Status Quo Utilization Profile

H2. Baseline Utilization Profile

H3. Baseline Utilization Profile for Belmont Zone with No New Secondary Schools

H4. Utilization Profile for Emerging Plan

Status Quo Utilization Profile Appendix H1

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 18 SSD utilization profiles.xls • SQ 2010 • Page 1 of 2

Nom Oper 2009 2014 2019 2024 2009 2014 2019 2024 2009 2014 2019 2024

Milne Port Renfrew K-5 75 66 16 10 12 12 50 56 54 54 24% 15% 18% 18% underutilizedZone John Muir K-5 200 176 168 215 254 282 8 -39 -78 -106 95% 122% 144% 160% becoming very overutilized

Sooke K-5 300 264 201 223 287 335 63 41 -23 -71 76% 84% 109% 127% becoming overutilized

Poirier K-5 Fi 425 374 372 443 507 548 2 -69 -133 -174 99% 118% 136% 147% becoming very overutilized

Saseenos K-5 200 176 124 124 127 131 52 52 49 45 70% 70% 72% 74% underutilized

Journey 6-8 575 575 489 554 703 840 86 21 -128 -265 85% 96% 122% 146% becoming very overutilized

Edward Milne 9-12 650 650 667 752 842 1,012 -17 -102 -192 -362 103% 116% 130% 156% becoming very overutilized

Belmont Hans Helgesen K-6 250 220 188 234 289 321 32 -14 -69 -101 85% 106% 131% 146% becoming very overutilizedZone Happy Valley K-6 375 330 299 438 513 609 31 -108 -183 -279 91% 133% 155% 185% becoming very overutilized

Wishart K-6 400 352 322 323 362 411 30 29 -10 -59 91% 92% 103% 117% becoming overutilized

Sangster K-6 250 220 174 190 197 214 46 30 23 6 79% 86% 90% 97% becoming well utilized

Dunsmuir 7-9 600 600 597 498 714 916 3 102 -114 -316 100% 83% 119% 153% becoming very overutilized

Colwood K-6 225 198 188 226 234 236 10 -28 -36 -38 95% 114% 118% 119% becoming overutilized

David Cameron K-6 400 352 320 385 477 590 32 -33 -125 -238 91% 109% 136% 168% becoming very overutilized

Crystal View K-6 325 286 232 246 294 313 54 40 -8 -27 81% 86% 103% 109% becoming well utilized

Savory K-6 200 176 173 211 248 251 3 -35 -72 -75 98% 120% 141% 143% becoming overutilized

John Stubbs K-9 Fi 900 828 681 845 1,006 1,123 147 -17 -178 -295 82% 102% 121% 136% becoming overutilized

Ruth King K-6 375 330 259 371 479 487 71 -41 -149 -157 78% 112% 145% 148% becoming very overutilized

Millstream K-6 200 176 194 202 207 206 -18 -26 -31 -30 110% 115% 118% 117% overutilized

Lakewood K-6 400 352 327 460 617 769 25 -108 -265 -417 93% 131% 175% 218% becoming very overutilized

Willway K-6 275 242 172 248 297 304 70 -6 -55 -62 71% 102% 123% 126% becoming overutilized

Spencer 7-9 650 650 678 621 783 980 -28 29 -133 -330 104% 96% 120% 151% becoming very overutilizedBelmont 10-12 Fi 1,400 1,400 1,380 1,317 1,480 1,812 20 83 -80 -412 99% 94% 106% 129% becoming overutilized

Total Sooke School District 9,650 8,993 8,221 9,136 10,929 12,702 772 -143 -1,936 -3,709 91% 102% 122% 141% becoming very overutilized

Surplus or Shortage Capacity Utilization Notes focusing on utilization levels

Zone SchoolGrade Span

FiCapacity (K-12) Enrolment (K-12)

Status Quo Utilization Profile Appendix H1

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 18 SSD utilization profiles.xls • SQ 2010 • Page 2 of 2

Nom Oper 2009 2014 2019 2024 2009 2014 2019 2024 2009 2014 2019 2024

Surplus or Shortage Capacity Utilization Notes focusing on utilization levels


FiCapacity (K-12) Enrolment (K-12)

Secondary schools 2,050 2,050 2,047 2,069 2,322 2,824 3 -19 -272 -774 100% 101% 113% 138% becoming very overutilized

Middle schools including Stubbs 2,725 2,653 2,445 2,518 3,206 3,859 208 135 -553 -1,206 92% 95% 121% 145% becoming very overutilized

Elementary schools including Stubbs 5,775 5,118 4,410 5,394 6,407 7,142 708 -276 -1,289 -2,024 86% 105% 125% 140% becoming very overutilized

Elementary excluding Port Renfrew 5,700 5,052 4,394 5,384 6,395 7,130 658 -332 -1,343 -2,078 87% 107% 127% 141% becoming very overutilized

Total excluding Port Renfrew 9,575 8,927 8,205 9,126 10,917 12,690 722 -199 -1,990 -3,763 92% 102% 122% 142% becoming very overutilized

Milne Zone excluding Port Renfrew 2,350 2,215 2,021 2,311 2,720 3,148 194 -96 -505 -933 91% 104% 123% 142% becoming very overutilized

Belmont Zone 7,225 6,712 6,184 6,815 8,197 9,542 528 -103 -1,485 -2,830 92% 102% 122% 142% becoming very overutilized

Belmont Zone middles including Stubbs 2,150 2,078 1,956 1,964 2,503 3,019 122 114 -425 -941 94% 95% 120% 145% becoming very overutilized

Belmont Zone elementaries with Stubbs 4,575 4,062 3,529 4,379 5,220 5,834 533 -317 -1,158 -1,772 87% 108% 129% 144% becoming very overutilized

Dunsmuir family elementary schools 1,275 1,122 983 1,185 1,361 1,555 139 -63 -239 -433 88% 106% 121% 139% becoming very overutilized

Stubbs family schools 2,050 1,840 1,594 1,913 2,259 2,513 246 -73 -419 -673 87% 104% 123% 137% becoming overutilized

Spencer family elementary schools 1,250 1,100 952 1,281 1,600 1,766 148 -181 -500 -666 87% 116% 145% 161% becoming very overutilized

Milne Zone elementaries excluding PR 1,125 990 865 1,005 1,175 1,296 125 -15 -185 -306 87% 102% 119% 131% becoming overutilized

Notes 2009 utilization is not strictly accurate since capacities are based on additions and modules being in place and FDK being fully implemented

Baseline Utilization Profile Appendix H2

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 18 SSD utilization profiles.xls • Base 2010 • Page 1 of 2

Nom Oper 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024

Milne Port Renfrew K-5 5 75 66 10 12 12 56 54 54 15% 18% 18% consider new approachZone John Muir K-5 4 200 176 215 254 282 -39 -78 -106 122% 144% 160% expand or replace

Sooke K-5 5 300 264 223 287 335 41 -23 -71 84% 109% 127% replace

Poirier K-5 1 Fi 425 374 443 507 548 -69 -133 -174 118% 136% 147% expand or new school

Saseenos K-5 4 200 176 124 127 131 52 49 45 70% 72% 74% replace or alternative

Journey 6-8 2 575 575 554 703 840 21 -128 -265 96% 122% 146% expand or new approach

Edward Milne 9-12 2 650 650 752 842 1,012 -102 -192 -362 116% 130% 156% expand

Belmont Hans Helgesen K-5 2 250 220 212 247 278 8 -27 -58 96% 112% 126% expandZone Happy Valley K-5 1 375 330 378 438 525 -48 -108 -195 115% 133% 159% expand and new school

Wishart K-5 3 400 352 279 313 356 73 39 -4 79% 89% 101% shift students in short term

Sangster K-5 5 250 220 152 170 185 68 50 35 69% 77% 84% replace or alternative

Dunsmuir 6-8 4 600 600 506 690 806 94 -90 -206 84% 115% 134% replace and new school

Colwood K-5 1 225 198 199 200 204 -1 -2 -6 101% 101% 103% well utilized

David Cameron K-5 2 400 352 324 410 506 28 -58 -154 92% 116% 144% shift students or expand

Crystal View K-5 1 325 286 218 258 273 68 28 13 76% 90% 95% becoming fairly well used

Savory K-5 4 200 176 185 212 216 -9 -36 -40 105% 120% 123% replace or alternative

John Stubbs K-8 1 Fi 900 828 882 1,054 1,160 -54 -226 -332 107% 127% 140% expand or alternative

Ruth King K-5 3 375 330 334 420 420 -4 -90 -90 101% 127% 127% expand or alternative

Millstream K-5 5 200 176 176 173 172 0 3 4 100% 98% 98% replace on a new site

Lakewood K-5 2 400 352 406 537 669 -54 -185 -317 115% 153% 190% expand and/or alternative

Willway K-5 3 275 242 215 256 261 27 -14 -19 89% 106% 108% becoming well utilized

Spencer 6-8 3 650 650 582 753 915 68 -103 -265 90% 116% 141% shift students

New Belmont 9-12 1 1,100 1,100 936 1,095 1,376 164 5 -276 85% 100% 125% shift students and expandRoyal Bay 9-12 1 Fi 800 800 937 1,095 1,376 -137 -295 -576 117% 137% 172% expand

Total Sooke School District 10,150 9,493 9,242 11,053 12,858 251 -1,560 -3,365 97% 116% 135% significant new space

Notes focusing on space implications

Enrolment (K-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity UtilizationZone School

Grade Span

FiCapacity (K-12)Con-

dition

Baseline Utilization Profile Appendix H2

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 18 SSD utilization profiles.xls • Base 2010 • Page 2 of 2

Nom Oper 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024Notes focusing on space implications

Enrolment (K-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity UtilizationZone School

Grade Span

FiCapacity (K-12)Con-

dition

Secondary schools 2,550 2,550 2,625 3,032 3,764 -75 -482 -1,214 103% 119% 148% expand

Middle schools including Stubbs 2,725 2,653 2,524 3,200 3,721 129 -547 -1,068 95% 121% 140% plan new middle

Elementary schools including Stubbs 5,775 5,118 4,975 5,875 6,533 143 -757 -1,415 97% 115% 128% 2-3 new and expansions

Elementary excluding Port Renfrew 5,700 5,052 4,965 5,863 6,521 87 -811 -1,469 98% 116% 129% 2-3 new and expansions

Total excluding Port Renfrew 10,075 9,427 9,232 11,041 12,846 195 -1,614 -3,419 98% 117% 136% significant new space

Milne Zone excluding Port Renfrew 2,350 2,215 2,311 2,720 3,148 -96 -505 -933 104% 123% 142% significant new space

Belmont Zone 7,725 7,212 6,921 8,321 9,698 291 -1,109 -2,486 96% 115% 134% significant new space

Belmont Zone middles including Stubbs 2,150 2,078 1,970 2,497 2,881 108 -419 -803 95% 120% 139% plan new middle

Belmont Zone elementaries with Stubbs 4,575 4,062 3,960 4,688 5,225 102 -626 -1,163 97% 115% 129% 2 new and expansions

Dunsmuir family elementary schools 1,275 1,122 1,021 1,168 1,344 101 -46 -222 91% 104% 120% expansions

Stubbs family schools 2,050 1,840 1,808 2,134 2,359 32 -294 -519 98% 116% 128% expansions

Spencer family elementary schools 1,250 1,100 1,131 1,386 1,522 -31 -286 -422 103% 126% 138% new and expansions

Milne Zone elementaries excluding PR 1,125 990 1,005 1,175 1,296 -15 -185 -306 102% 119% 131% new and expansions

Notes

Differences in total enrolment compared with status quo estimate are due to estimated 'repatriation' of Grade 9-12 students from SD61

Baseline Utilization Profile for Belmont Zone with No New Secondary Schools Appendix H3

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 18 SSD utilization profiles.xls • BaseNS 2010

Nom Oper 2010 2014 2019 2010 2014 2019 2010 2014 2019

Hans Helgesen K-5 2 250 220 157 212 247 63 8 -27 71% 96% 112% becoming well utilized

Happy Valley K-5 1 375 330 272 378 438 58 -48 -108 82% 115% 133% becoming over utilized

Wishart K-5 3 400 352 277 279 313 75 73 39 79% 79% 89% fairly well utilized

Sangster K-5 5 250 220 153 152 170 67 68 50 70% 69% 77% slightly underutilized

Dunsmuir 6-8 4 600 600 568 506 690 32 94 -90 95% 84% 115% becoming well utilized

Colwood K-5 1 225 198 139 199 200 59 -1 -2 70% 101% 101% well utilized

David Cameron K-5 2 400 352 269 324 410 83 28 -58 76% 92% 116% becoming well utilized

Crystal View K-5 1 325 286 200 218 258 86 68 28 70% 76% 90% becoming fairly well used

Savory K-5 4 200 176 123 185 212 53 -9 -36 70% 105% 120% becoming well utilized

John Stubbs K-8 1 Fi 900 828 771 882 1,054 57 -54 -226 93% 107% 127% becoming over utilized

Ruth King K-5 3 375 330 224 334 420 106 -4 -90 68% 101% 127% becoming over utilized

Millstream K-5 5 200 176 184 176 173 -8 0 3 105% 100% 98% well utilized

Lakewood K-5 2 400 352 313 406 537 39 -54 -185 89% 115% 153% becoming over utilized

Willway K-5 3 275 242 161 215 256 81 27 -14 67% 89% 106% becoming well utilized

Spencer 6-8 3 650 650 555 582 753 95 68 -103 85% 90% 116% becoming well utilized

Belmont 9-12 5 Fi 1,100 1,100 1,784 1,767 2,066 -684 -667 -966 162% 161% 188% extremely over utilized

Total Sooke School District 6,925 6,412 6,150 6,815 8,197 262 -403 -1,785 96% 106% 128% significant new space

Middle schools including Stubbs 2,150 2,078 1,894 1,970 2,497 184 108 -419 91% 95% 120% becoming over utilized

Elementary schools including Stubbs 4,575 4,062 3,243 3,960 4,688 819 102 -626 80% 97% 115% becoming over utilized

Notes focusing on utilization

Enrolment (K-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity UtilizationSchool

Grade Span

Con-dition

FiCapacity (K-12)

Utilization Profile for Emerging Plan Appenidx H4

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 19 SSD utilization profiles.xls • Expand 2010 • Page 1 of 2

Nom Oper 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024

Milne Port Renfrew K-5 5 75 66 10 12 12 56 54 54 15% 18% 18% New partnership approachZone John Muir K-5 1 125 325 286 215 254 282 71 32 4 75% 89% 99% Expand or replace

• Sooke K-8 1 600 600 528 248 437 530 280 91 -2 47% 83% 100% Replace with K-8

Poirier K-5 1 Fi 425 374 343 357 373 31 17 1 92% 95% 100% Shift to Sunriver

• New Sunriver K-5 1 300 300 264 100 150 255 164 114 9 38% 57% 97% From Poirier + Sooke

Saseenos K-5 4 200 176 124 127 131 52 49 45 70% 72% 74% Band may acquire in future

Journey 6-8 2 575 575 529 553 565 46 22 10 92% 96% 98% Portables until K-8 ready

Edward Milne 9-12 2 350 1,000 1,000 752 842 1,012 248 158 -12 75% 84% 101% Expand

Belmont Hans Helgesen K-5 2 250 220 212 222 228 8 -2 -8 96% 101% 104% ShiftZone Happy Valley K-5 1 50 425 374 278 313 375 96 61 -1 74% 84% 100% Expand. Shift

Wishart K-5 3 400 352 304 338 381 48 14 -29 86% 96% 108%

• Sangster K-5 1 400 400 352 227 295 360 125 57 -8 64% 84% 102% Replace on new site. Shift

• Dunsmuir 6-8 1 600 600 600 506 590 606 94 10 -6 84% 98% 101% Replace on site. Shift

Colwood K-5 1 225 198 199 200 204 -1 -2 -6 101% 101% 103%

David Cameron K-5 2 400 352 324 335 356 28 17 -4 92% 95% 101% Shift

Crystal View K-5 1 325 286 218 258 273 68 28 13 76% 90% 95%

• Westhills K-5 1 400 400 352 185 287 366 167 65 -14 53% 82% 104% New on new site

Savory K-5 4 Re-purpose. Shift

John Stubbs K-8 1 Fi 900 828 832 829 835 -4 -1 -7 100% 100% 101% Shift M+E

Ruth King K-5 3 375 330 309 320 320 21 10 10 94% 97% 97% Shift

• Millstream K-5 1 400 400 352 251 298 362 101 54 -10 71% 85% 103% Replace on new site. EM?

• New Middle (NL) 6-8 1 650 650 650 0 325 650 650 325 0 0% 50% 100% New on new site. EM?

Lakewood K-5 2 400 352 331 337 349 21 15 3 94% 96% 99% Shift

• New Elementary K-5 1 400 400 352 75 300 355 277 52 -3 21% 85% 101% New school on new site

Willway K-5 3 275 242 215 256 261 27 -14 -19 89% 106% 108%

Spencer 6-8 3 650 650 582 628 665 68 22 -15 90% 97% 102% Shift

New Belmont 9-12 1 1,100 1,100 936 1,095 1,376 164 5 -276 85% 100% 125% Future new secondary?New Royal Bay 9-12 1 Fi 300 1,100 1,100 937 1,095 1,376 163 5 -276 85% 100% 125% Expand. Future new?

Total Sooke School District 4,575 13,175 12,311 9,242 11,053 12,858 3,069 1,258 -547 75% 90% 104% significant new space


Con-dition

FiCapacity (K-12) Enrolment (K-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity Utilization Notes focusing on space

implicationsNew

space

Utilization Profile for Emerging Plan Appenidx H4

Matrix Planning Associates 1098 • 2011 01 19 SSD utilization profiles.xls • Expand 2010 • Page 2 of 2

Nom Oper 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024 2014 2019 2024Zone School

Grade Span

Con-dition

FiCapacity (K-12) Enrolment (K-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity Utilization Notes focusing on space

implicationsNew

space

Secondary schools 3,200 3,200 2,625 3,032 3,764 575 168 -564 82% 95% 118% expand. Future new?

Middle schools including Stubbs 2,725 2,653 2,449 2,600 2,671 204 53 -18 92% 98% 101% 2 new middlesElementary schools including Stubbs 8,150 7,286 5,000 6,250 7,258 2,286 1,036 28 69% 86% 100% 6 new plus expansions

Milne Zone excluding Port Renfrew 3,425 3,203 2,311 2,720 3,148 892 483 55 72% 85% 98% significant new space

Belmont Zone 9,675 9,042 6,921 8,321 9,698 2,121 721 -656 77% 92% 107% significant new space

Belmont Zone middles including Stubbs 2,150 2,078 1,920 2,047 2,106 158 31 -28 92% 99% 101% new middle

Belmont Zone elementaries with Stubbs 6,225 5,592 3,960 4,913 5,675 1,632 679 -83 71% 88% 101% 4 new and expansions

Dunsmuir family elementary schools 1,475 1,298 1,021 1,168 1,344 277 130 -46 79% 90% 104% new and expansions

Stubbs family schools 2,250 2,016 1,758 1,909 2,034 258 107 -18 87% 95% 101% new elementary

Spencer family elementary schools 2,500 2,278 1,181 1,836 2,297 1,097 442 -19 52% 81% 101% 2 new elementaries

Milne Zone elementaries excluding PR 1,850 1,628 1,030 1,325 1,571 598 303 57 63% 81% 96% 2 new and expansions

Notes

Differences in total enrolment compared with status quo estimate are due to estimated 'repatriation' of Grade 9-12 students from SD61

Documents

DISTRICT FACILITIES PLAN 2010 UPDATEroyalbay.sd62.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/10/MatrixUpd… · 5.1 Utilization Analysis for Emerging Plans 30 5.2 Emerging Plan for the