Site Selection Criteria And Evaluation Handbook
SiteSelectionCriteriaandEvaluationHandbookState of Alaska - Department of EducationEducation Support Services / Facilities2011 Edition
CONTRIBUTORSSam Kito III, P.E.Facilities EngineerAlaska Department of Education and Early DevelopmentJuneau, AlaskaScott Thomas, P.E.Alaska Department of Transportation and Public FacilitiesAnchorage, AlaskaACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks to the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee members who reviewed thepublication in its draft form and to those at the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,Division of Facility Procurement Policy Division who were responsible for the predecessor to thisdocument. Special thanks to Tim Mearig, AIA, Edwin Crittenden, FAIA and Michael Morgan, PMPwho shepherded earlier versions of this document through to completionThis publication may not be reproduced for sale by individuals or entities other than the:State of AlaskaDepartment of EducationJuneau, AlaskaThis publication was originally adapted from a November 1978 document published by the State ofAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Facility Procurement Policy,entitled Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Guideline for Educational Facilities in Rural Alaska.State of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Table of ContentsSECTION . PageINTRODUCTION.2BASIC PROCEDURES .3Site Selection ElementsWeighting FactorsApplying Ranking CriteriaTabulating and Analyzing ResultsRANKING CRITERIA ELEMENTS .5THE EVALUATION REPORT . 24Introduction and Executive SummaryMaps and GraphicsEvaluation Matrix and NarrativesAPPENDICESAPPENDIX A .25Evaluation MatrixAPPENDIX B .28Sample Site Graphic AnalysisAPPENDIX C .29Suburban School LayoutState of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition1
IntroductionOverviewThe perfect school site can be envisioned as generally level with some topographic interest, havingcomplete utilities, stable, well drained soils, excellent road and pedestrian access, protection fromexcessive weather patterns, with ample space for school facilities, playground and sports fields. Thesite would be accessible to present and future populations and be free of any natural orenvironmental hazards. It would be removed from undesirable business, industry and traffic hazardsbut be convenient to important public facilities and recreational/outdoor learning areas. In mostcommunities, however, the perfect site is elusive and difficult to find.School siting is also a serious public policy decision. Land availability, land use, public sentimentand other community issues can have dramatic influence on site selection. In any site selectionprocess, local involvement and judgments regarding the relative significance of selection criteria areimportant.This Site Selection Criteria Handbook was developed with flexibility in mind, and can be used byschool districts to perform a site selection analysis for any school facility by carefully selecting theappropriate criteria and weighting factors. Districts can use this guide for analysis of siteopportunities for elementary schools, secondary schools, charter schools, alternative schools andspecial purpose facilities.Finally, site selection for school facilities has a direct and lasting impact on the resources of the Stateof Alaska. Both the economic resources and the natural resources of the state are affected by theconstruction and operation of public schools. Primarily in response to these factors, the staterecognizes the need for careful and thorough evaluation of school sites.AuthorityThe guidelines incorporated in this handbook have been developed to give assistance and directionto Alaska school districts and communities in determining the suitability of various building sites foreducational facilities planning. They are based upon AS 14.11.013 and 14.11.100, which providesfor department review of projects to ensure they are in the best interest of the state. This provision isfurther developed by regulation 4 AAC 31.025 which requires approval of educational facility sitesunder paragraph (a) and investigations by the appropriate local governing body for suitability inparagraph (d). This handbook establishes the basic considerations for an adequate site selectionprocess. Other products of similar detail may be used to fill the requirements laid out in statute andregulation.State of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition2
Basic ProceduresSite Selection ElementsThis handbook establishes a set of basic site selection elements and offers suggested evaluationcriteria for rating the elements. Although the document does incorporate an internal weightingfactor (it lists a few key ranking criteria elements which have high cost impacts in more than onesub-category) it does not prescribe the importance of most selection elements but rather, incorporatesa weighting system whereby a district or community can assign a range of importance to eachelement. It is recognized that information for all the elements cannot always be determined nor areall elements applicable to every site. However, detail and rigor in addressing the elements isimportant for an effective evaluation.The selection elements are grouped into three major categories as follows:1. Social and Land Use Factors2. Construction Cost Factorsa) Soils/Foundationsb) Utilitiesc) Other3. Operations and Maintenance Cost FactorsThe site selection elements form the basis for an evaluation matrix which is shown in Appendix Aand is available as a spreadsheet on the department’s website. The first step in the process is toreview the matrix elements for applicability to the project and sites being considered.Weighting Factors (WF)After identifying the site selection elements, the next step is to assign weighting factors to eachelement. Assignment of the weighting factors is the district/community’s opportunity to apply itsvalues to the evaluation process so that the final scores for each site reflect issues involved at thelocal level. This is often accomplished through community surveys, public meetings and otherforums for developing consensus among the parties affected by the school project. A suggestedmodel for the district/community weighting factors is shown below:Weighting Factors1 not very important2 somewhat important3 important4 very important5 essentialState of Alaska - Department of EducationEducation Support Services / Facilities2011 Edition
Basic ProceduresApplying Ranking CriteriaFollowing the assignment of the weighting factors, each selection element is evaluated according toestablished criteria and ranked on the simple five point scale from 0 to 4. The detailed rankingcriteria to be used, which differentiates as needed between rural and urban sites, is describedfollowing this section on Basic Procedures. The table below gives a suggested definition of eachranking score:Criteria Ranking Scores0 unacceptable (least desirable/least cost effective)1 poor2 fair3 good4 excellent (most desirable/most cost effective)Tabulating and Analyzing ResultsUsing the Site Evaluation Matrix (Appendix A) enter the criteria ranking scores for each element.Compute the total score for each site by multiplying each criteria score by the weighting factor andsum them. An example of a portion of the Site Evaluation Matrix is shown below:Maintenance and Operating Cost FactorsCriteriaSite DrainageFloodingSite ErosionSun OrientationProtection from ElementsProximity to Natural HazardsAlternative Energy SourcesAir Inversions/Katabatic WindsTOTALSWF Site34422432144323014S1 xWF1216124603861Site234313314S2 xWF9161226123868Site332312424S3 x SiteWF49n/a8n/a12n/a2n/a4n/a16n/a6n/a8n/a65S4 xWFn/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aThe total scores for each site represent a detailed analysis; the highest score should indicate the mostdesirable site. If the district or community, based on factors not captured by the evaluation, desiresto choose a site other than the site receiving the highest score, a narrative justification of this positionwill need to be developed for inclusion in the site selection report.State of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition4
Ranking Criteria ElementsThe following ranking criteria elements provide specific guidance to school districts in establishing ascore of each associated ranking element. If a particular district has a particular criteria that is notincluded in the ranking criteria listed below, but is important to the district in determining theacceptability of a school site, then the district can utilize the spreadsheet available on thedepartment’s website to add that criteria to the scoring matrix. Because the department reviews andapproves site selection decisions made by a school district, the department will need to be consultedif additional criteria are proposed for a site selection analysis.Size of SiteCriteria:The specific criteria listed below have been adapted from the Council of Educational FacilityPlanners International Creating Connections Guideline.Selection of a school site involves many variables, all of which cannot be captured in a basic metricsuch as the one shown below; however, the tool below can be helpful for identifying theapproximate site size necessary to accommodate a district’s proposed school facility. For assistancewith estimating size for a particular use contact the department, or consult with a designprofessional.UseTypical SizeBuilding FootprintService Area (3 dumpsters/recycling bins, loading andturning area for two trucks)Bus Drop-off/Pick-up (including space for angled parkingand driveways with appropriate turning radius)Bus Drop-off/Pick-up (parallel loading at sidewalk)Car Drop-off/Pick-upVehicle ParkingPaved Outdoor Play AreaK-2 Playground Equipment Area3-5 Playground Equipment AreaOutdoor Learning AreaGrassy/Natural Play AreaFootball FieldFootball Field with track and field event spaceSoccerActualEstimated SizeVaries8,000 SF5,500 SF/bus650 SF/bus250 SF/car285 SF/space4,500 SF (varies)3,200 SF (varies)3,200 SF (varies)VariesVaries88,000 SF225,000 SF106,000 SF/fieldTotal Net Square FootageNet to Gross Factor (10% for larger sites varying to 30% forsmall sites to accommodate walkways and buffers betweenactivity areas)10%-30% of netsquare footageTotal Useable Area RequiredNumber of Useable Acres Required(divide total useable area required by 43,560 SF/acre)See next page for evaluation criteriaState of Alaska - Department of EducationEducation Support Services / Facilities2011 Edition
Ranking Criteria ElementsEvaluation (for Site Size Criteria):Site size is within 30% of the calculated programmatic space requirements for theproposed facilitySite size is within 20% of the calculated programmatic space requirements for theproposed facilitySite size is within 10% of the calculated programmatic space requirements for theproposed facilitySite size is adequate to meet the calculated programmatic space requirements for theproposed facilitySite size exceeds the calculated programmatic space requirements for proposedfacility and provides room for building expansion and/or activity use expansionScores:01234Proximity to Population to be ServedCriteria:Ideally, all students served by the school would be in convenient, safe walking distance to the site.In communities with roads, convenient vehicle/bus travel is also important. Evaluate this criterionusing the anticipated population distribution when the school is at capacity (i.e. 5 year postoccupancy). Use the following standard, evaluating for both elements and using the lowest score: 50% of students served are within reasonable walking distance (i.e. ¼ mile or less) and, 90% of students served are within a 15 minute vehicle/bus rideEvaluation:Proximity of student population is 40% or more below standardProximity of student population is within 20% of standardProximity of student population is within 10% of standardProximity of student population is equal to standardProximity of student population is 10% or more above standardState of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 EditionScores:012346
Ranking Criteria ElementsProximity to Future Expansion of CommunityCriteria:Occasionally, schools are constructed on sites that within 20 years are no longer adjacent topopulation centers and/or residential areas. This criterion assesses long-range planning and land usefactors related to school sites. Use a subjective evaluation of how well the site corresponds to futureexpansion and land use in the community to score this criterion. Answer the question, “Is this agood long-term site for a school?”Evaluation:Incompatible with future expansionSignificant variances with future expansionSome variances with future expansionCorresponds well with future expansionCorresponds ideally with future expansionScores:01234Proximity to Important Existing FacilitiesCriteria:In some instances, a district/community can identify an existing facility (e.g. swimming pool, foodservice, etc.) which is shared between multiple schools and to which close proximity is essential ordesired. If more than one facility is important, this criterion may have to be scored multiple times.In most cases the adjacency is important because it involves student transit. Use the followingstandard: students served are within a short walking distance to important existing facilities (i.e. 1/8 mile[660ft.] or less)Evaluation:Proximity of school is 40% or more below standardProximity of school is within 20% of standardProximity of school is within 10% of standardProximity of school is equal to standardProximity of school is 10% or more above standardState of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 EditionScores:012347
Ranking Criteria ElementsYear-round AccessibilityCriteria:Ideally, the site should be easily accessible during all times of the year regardless of weather andtemperature effects on paths, walks or roads. In some communities, access may improve duringwinter due to frozen water/wetlands. In other communities, winter may cause the most difficultaccessibility problems. Evaluate this criteria assuming standard amenities for site accessibility areprovided (i.e. walks, roads, bridges, etc.). Costs for providing these amenities should be covered inother criteria.Evaluation:Site is inaccessible during certain times of the yearAccess is routinely interrupted by weather/temperature conditionsAccess is periodically over swampy, unstable soilsTypically year-round well drained ground/road accessFully accessible; only severe storms may temporarily hinder accessScores:01234Site TopographyCriteria:Ideally, the site should be fairly level with some topographic relief that can provide opportunities forlearning area development. In some communities, choice of level property may not be available, soconsideration should be given to the side that best meets the programmatic needs of the facility.Evaluate this criterion by considering the types of amenities required for the facility (i.e.playground/play area, soccer field, track, basketball court, etc.). Costs for providing these amenitiesshould be covered in other criteria.Evaluation:Site contains significant topographic relief, and cannot accommodate anticipated usesSite is not level, and can only accommodate a limited number of anticipated usesSite is not level, but can still accommodate all anticipated usesSite is mostly level and can accommodate all anticipated usesSite is level and can accommodate all anticipated usesState of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 EditionScores:012348
Ranking Criteria ElementsTraffic Impact, Access Needs:The following five criteria relate to traffic and access issues that may affect a potential school site.A thoughtfully situated site will allow walking, busing and driving access while minimizing crashrisk between those modes of travel as well as mainline traffic. The criteria address capital andmaintenance needs for road function, sight distance, access and circulation, walking routes, schoolzones, turn lanes, and traffic signals. The following five criteria are especially important to considerin urban and suburban site selection processes where inadequately addressed traffic issues can resultin safety concerns for students.Road AccessCriteria:Evaluate site access options. Access to the school site from minor arterials and collectors is morecompatible than access from high speed or high volume road corridors or a low volumeneighborhood residential street. Consider traffic speed and volume at the point of driveway access.Request DOT/PF or local agency assistance for roadway classification and traffic volumeinformation.Evaluation:Driveway access from National Highway System, Principal Arterial, or InterstateDriveway access from a low volume internal residential-only streetDriveway access from a Major Arterial roadwayDriveway access from a Minor Arterial roadwayScores:0123Driveway access from Local Road or Collector (not generally a low volumeresidential-only street)4Visibility, safety of drivewaysCriteria:Driveways have the potential to create conflicts when vehicles enter the roadway, particularly whereslopes, curves or obstacles prevent good sight distance. The potential for conflicts can be reducedthrough provision of proper sight distance and traffic control devices. Evaluate sight distance atexisting intersections and identify changes that may be required to provide adequate sight distance.Request DOT/PF or local agency assistance for minimum intersection sight distance.Evaluation:Adequate intersection sight distance cannot be provided or is very difficult to provide.n/aAdequate intersection sight distance can be provided but requires clearing and/orearthwork.n/aAdequate intersection sight distance can be provided without any major work.State of Alaska - Department of EducationSite Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 EditionScores:012349
Ranking Criteria ElementsDriveway Conflicts and Internal CirculationCriteria:Driveway access options are limited by roadway frontage. The greater the frontage along a road, oralong adjoining roads, the greater the likelihood that multiple driveways will provide options forinternal site circulation of vehicular traffic (buses, visitors, students and faculty), pedestrians andbicycle traffic. Evaluate driveway access and internal circulation options. For information ondriveway separation requirements, contact DOT/PF.Evaluation:Road frontage limits access to one driveway; site restricts or limits internal sitecirculation, or driveways and access frontage is insufficient for multiple modes ofaccess.n/aRoad frontage limits driveway access options; site allows internal site circulationoptions. Frontage limits multiple modes of access.n/aRoad frontage wide enough for multiple driveways and other modes of travel; siteallows internal site circulation options.Scores:01234Safe Routes to School for Pedestrians and BicyclesCriteria:Safe walking routes enable students within a short distance of the school the option to walk or ridebicycles. Minor collectors and local roads with easy access to the school are best for studentpedestrians and bicycles. Roads with
Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition 4 Applying Ranking Criteria . Following the assignment of the weighting factors, each selection element is evaluated according to established criteria and ranked on the
Apr 10, 2009 · The Site Selection Criteria At the WCACC February board meeting, the Skystone Ryan team led the board in two exercises designed to evaluate and prioritize site selection criteria. The first exercise was designed to identify which criteria are considered valuable; the second,
such a site. III. General Criteria for Site Selection A site should be accessible year round, and in normal weather conditions. It should be secure against vandalism, and from animals, both wild (e.g., bears) and domestic (e.g., cows). When a fence is used to secure a site, the Siting Criteria
dinner & family style & buffet selection dinner page 3 theme buffet’s - minimum 80 pax page 4 family style selection - thai page 6 family style selection - asian / indian page 8 family style selection - european page 10 buffet selection - thai page 12 buffet selection - asian / indian page 14 buffet selection - european page 17 prices
Selection Nr.: 0 O Price set to zero Selection Nr.: 5 O Fast up Fast Increase of price or column Selection Nr.: 6 O Fast down Fast Decrease of price or column Selection Nr.: # O Copy function Copy price on next column Selection Nr.: * O Slave selection Request for slave selection Password 4 -2-3-1-4 Entry by selection button 4 key 4
Jul 14, 2011 · SELECTION CRITERIA. The aim of the site selection process was to identify bridges that have varying degrees of degradation with potential to be identified and quantified using the remote sensing technologies. The end goal of the site selection
Site Selection Criteria Locating a geographical area of land which is not only suitable, but most appropriate for a specific use is a multi-industry problem. The literature represents this with a multitude of site selection studies aiming to find
Tender Evaluation in Complex Procurement Better Practice Guide UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED 12 September 2017 2 Table of Contents . evaluation criteria contained in the request documentation. These criteria will also be set out in the TEP. The evaluation criteria are used to assist the evaluation team to objectively assess tenders and
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 6) – 2012 Transplanting for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and other Woody Plant Maintenance Standard Practices (Transplanting) Drip line The hole should be 1.5-2 times the width of the root ball. EX: a 32” root ball should have a minimum wide 48” hole
