REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
DATE: May 3, 2016 Report No. DEV-16-032
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
Title
Council review of proposed Terms of Reference for the Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines
End
ESSENTIAL QUESTION:
Does Council have any concerns with the proposed Terms of Reference for the Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines (Schedule “A”)?
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Committee of the Whole instruct staff to amend the terms of reference based on Council’s review and to bring them back to the next regular Council meeting for approval.
Body
BACKGROUND:
Council has identified, “support revitalization and beautification initiatives along Esquimalt Road” as a strategic priority. In response to this priority, staff presented Council with an outline for the “Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines” at their November 9, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time Council passed the following motion:
That the Committee of the Whole approve the proposed outline for the Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines Request for Proposals and instruct staff to prepare the Request for Proposals document for final Council approval.
At their regular May 2, 2016 meeting, Council approved the budget which included $150,000.00 for this project. Staff are now in a position to bring the Request for Proposals back to Council for approval as per their November 9, 2015 motion; however, prior to that staff would like Council to have an opportunity to review the Request for Proposals and provide staff with any suggested changes before it is brought back at a regular Council meeting for approval.
The draft Request for Proposals (Schedule “A”) incorporates most of the material presented to Council on November 9, 2015 but with more detail. In addition, the Request for Proposals responds to some of the issues raised by the Chamber of Commerce in their November 10, 2015 letter to Mayor and Council (Schedule “B”) and a November 15, 2015 e-mail from Edward Pullman, President of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition (Schedule “C”). Specifically, the Request for Proposals contains the requirement for an economic analysis related to the implementation of the design guidelines and the requirement to do an analysis of the relationship between the proposed design guidelines and the existing road infrastructure and traffic. A detailed traffic analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Finally, the proposed design guideline document will form part of the background information that will inform the content of the new Official Community Plan.
ISSUES:
This project is directly related to Council’s strategic priority to support revitalization and beautification initiatives along Esquimalt Road. In order to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a coordinated manner that enhances the urban design of Esquimalt Road, it is necessary to have design guidelines in place for both the public and the private realm. These guidelines will provide a transparent framework that will allow landowners, developers, and Council to make decisions that are based on a known and accepted decision-making framework.
Council’s attention is also brought to the proposed evaluation criteria in the request for proposals. Section 9 (b) of Bylaw 2845 being the Bylaw to Delegate Authority for Purchasing and Disposal states, “If multiple evaluation criteria are used, cost must be one of the criteria and must represent at least 40%, but not greater than 60% of the total evaluation”. In this case the cost is fixed at $140,000.00 therefore the bylaw criteria is difficult to apply literally. Instead, staff are suggesting that 60% of the evaluation criteria be based on what the proponent will deliver for the $140,000.00. Specifically, 30% of the evaluation criteria will be based on the “degree of public engagement process (e.g. number and type of meetings, online engagement, degree to which the public gets to participate (Charrette vs open house) etc.)” and 30% of the evaluation criteria will be based on the “proposed deliverables (e.g. final report, draft guidelines, video, web ready material, newsletters, final presentation to Council etc.). The remaining 40% of the evaluation criteria will be based on team composition, innovation, and references.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That the COTW receive Staff Report No. DEV-16-032 for information, provide any additional direction to staff as the COTW considers advisable, and direct staff to prepare a report for Council’s consideration.
2. That the COTW provide alternative direction to staff.
3. That the COTW request further information from staff.