2005 UBCM Community Excellence Awards
Category: Best Practices
Sponsor: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services
Project Background:
This site, while in a high profile location adjacent to the Upper Harbour and Downtown in the
Victoria West neighbourhood, has remained vacant for the 10 years the City owned it. This was
primarily due to the fact that it is a contaminated, or “brownfield”site, and the cost of cleaning up the site
(estimated at $12 million for a full clean up) and the costs the City had incurred in acquistion and related
infrastructure provisions were greater than the market value of the property.
The project objective is to see the Dockside Lands developed to their full value and potential in a manner
that is beneficial to Victoria.
After a comprehensive process, the City has now successfully marketed the site. The
development proposal selected was supported unanimously by Council in December of 2004.
The City is currently finalizing negotiations with the Developer (Dockside Green Limited) that
will see a development which melds together the marine industrial uses along the working
harbour to the east and the residential commercial areas to the west and north, through a mix of
light industrial, commercial and residential uses. The development will be a flagship example for
sustainable development. It includes commitments to assume all risks and costs associated with
the brownfield remediation, obtain LEED Platinum for the entire development, be greenhouse
gas neutral (through provision of an on site biomass energy co-generating facility), provide on
site sewage treatment and stormwater management, provide a bio-diesel facility, extensive public
open space, pathways (including the Galloping Goose cycling trail) and amenties, affordable and
seniors housing. The area will be distinctive in its mix of working and residential environments,
and employ creative design that complements its urban location.
As a feature part of the core of the city and its historic waterfront, Dockside will be a collage of
many uses that will attract and appeal to those who choose to live there, work there or simply
visit – a true inner city living experience.
Improved Service: At the outset of the project, a Steering Committee was created through the
project team leader, Kim Fowler, Manager, Regulatory and Development Services Division.
This Committee was comprised of Pam Madoff, City Councillor and Chair of Planning; Denise
Savoie, City Councillor and Vic West Council representative; Joe Martinago, City Manager; Jack
Basey, Director, Planning and Development; Clive Timms, Approving Officer; and Mike
McCliggot, Comptroller. Early on, the Committee identified several processes that the Project
Team was to target for improvement through the implementation of this project. The areas of
focus were:
 Due diligence, fairness and openess in the process
 Community engagement and consultation
 Requirement for “full value” and consideration of a balanced triple bottom line (social,
environmental, economic)
 Partnering – Intergovernmental and public-private
Approach:
Due Diligence, Fairness and Openess in the Process
1) Environmental Investigation
The City hire an environmental consultant to carry out the detailed site investigation to
1
determine, as accurately as possible, the extent and type of contamination and what options
and related costs were viable for remediation.
2) Business Case/Development Opportunities
In addition to the environmental considerations, the Business Case considered other
information gathered regarding the site including geotechnical and land claims, the minimum
break-even policy for the project (which meant that the land sale had to recover all costs
incurred by the City) and a market risk analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to
determine the market demand for various land uses and densities over the 7-10 year project
horizon. The initial pro forma showed that the existing site density of 1:1 would not achieve
the break-even policy. This report, adopted by Council in September 2002, was posted on the
City’s webpage, and provided the starting point for the community engagement process.
3) Request for Proposal Process (RFP)
The drafting of the RFP and the triple bottom line evaluation criteria matrix involved the
neighborhood and development community. The neighborhood role is outlined in the
community engagement section. After the first stage of the RFP process (expression of
interest and pre-qualification) and before the RFP was formally issued, the shortlisted
developers were offered an opportunty to review and comment on the RFP and evaluation
criteria.
4) Community Representative and Fairness Advisor Role
For the first time, the City of Victoria permitted a community member (appointed by the
neighbourhood association) to monitor the RFP process – traditionally a closed process,
which built trust and provided a legacy of understanding of the land sales and competition
process in the community.
A fairness advisor also monitored the RFP process to protect the community, developer’s and
community’s interests.
At the end of the RFP process, both reported to Council on their impression of the process,
which Council took into consideration in making their decision.
Community Engagment and Consultation
1) Dockside Advisory Committee
A customized community engagement process was designed for this project. The first stage
consisted of a Dockside Advisory Committee, two open houses and three workshops. The
Dockside Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from the residential and
development community (UDI, BOMA, neighborhood residents and industry
representatives), drafted the vision and planning principles through consideration of
numerous factors, such as a cost-effective approach to environmental remediation,
sustainability and livability. The Business Case provided the baseline information for the
public on the site and project.
2) Public consultation – workshops and open houses
The public then reviewed the draft vision and planning principles through a series of open
houses and workshops. The results of the Business Case were also presented at the open
houses, at which the public had an opportunity to listen to presentations, view panel boards,
ask questions and provide some initial feedback. Three workshops were then held at various
2
times and days of the week to accommodate various groups. The format was a charette style,
starting with the whole group, then breaking off into smaller workgroups, and finally
workgroup presentations and discussions with the whole group. The main issues were land
use, density, community amenities and initial design guidelines.
3) Market Risk Analysis, Development Concept and RFP Evaluation Criteria
Building on the Business Case, and work done by the Advisory Committee and community,
the next project stage detailed potentially viable land use, density and community amenity
options through community involvement. These options were then subjected to a detailed pro
forma analysis to verify market viability, both for the City selling the land, and the proponent
successfully developing the land.The next step was to conduct a market and risk analysis,
which incorporated the vision; planning principles; current and projected market conditions;
environmental remediation costs and consideration of the City’s break-even policy. This
analysis determined two options with varying densities, which were shared with the
community through additional open houses and in-depth meetings with the neighbourhood
representatives. As the City was clearly committed to providing high-quality public open
space as the paramount community benefit from the site redevelopment, in addition to
environmental site remediation, the strongly preferred option was the higher density (2:1
FSR).
All the analysis, public feedback and additional information were then used to draft the
Development Concept plan. Additional open houses and community association meetings
were held to review the draft. All open houses and workshops were advertised on the City’s
web page and both community newspapers, and feedback forms were placed on the City’s
web page and available in City Hall to provide feedback on the Development Concept and
RFP. Media relations included news releases, press conferences, radio shows, and interviews
to cover a broad public spectrum at key project stages. The Development Concept was
prepared by an interdisciplinary working group (consisting of planning, engineering,
architectural, land sales, real estate, and project management expertise), which reported to the
Steering Committee.
By providing the recommended land-use, density, design guidelines and community
amenities, developers and design teams were able to create development proposals for the
Dockside Lands, consistent with the Development Concept. Innovation within the parameters
of the Development Concept was strongly encouraged. The intent was to provide the
community and developers with certainty regarding the main development aspects of land
use, density, design guidelines and community amenities, and to allow development
flexibility permitting viable, innovative development proposals. Standard zoning approaches
were viewed as being too detailed and prescriptive, resulting in limited flexibility and all
proposals appearing the same.
Following adoption of the Development Concept by Council in May 2004, the City opened
the RFP process for the first time to include a public presentation and public feedback of the
finalist proponents. Public feedback through written submissions, available through the
City’s web site and in hard copy, and through verbal comments at the public presentation,
was a critical component of Council’s final consideration of the successful proponent. The
community was also consulted on the triple bottom line matrix contained in the RFP.
3
“Full Value”and the Balanced Triple Bottom Line
1) Full Value
It was acknowledged that the stewardship of public lands required that a broader
definition of “full value” be applied. Throughout the project, the Team has been cognizant
of the various forms of value that have to be considered in the context of the Dockside
Lands. One “value” cannot be measured in isolation (e.g. the highest sales price for the
Land) as it may conflict with one or more other values (e.g. the desire for a “working
harbour”) – they all must be considered simultaneously and balanced in such a way that
the best overall value to the City is obtained with the knowledge available at the time.
2) Balanced Triple Bottom Line
This approach was used to select the successful proponent through the Request for
Proposal (RFP) process. Scoring was divided equally (1/3 each) between social,
economic and environmental criteria derived from the Development Concept. The
traditional approach of selling the land to the highest bidder was viewed as being
imbalanced and not in the community’s interest. A minimum score of 50% within each of
the three categories was required to be invited to a public presentation of the proponent
finalists. The RFP selection panel consisted of a cross section of City staff, including
financial, engineering, planning, legal and environmental expertise.
Partnering – Intergovernmental and public-private
1) Intergovernmental
The City hired British Columbia Building Corporation (BCBC) through its Memorandum of
Understanding to provide an array of client services, including real estate, market analysis,
project management and design. BCBC provided all these services, which municipalities do
not normally have under one umbrella.
The Development Concept and RFP referenced several provincial and federal programs and
initiatives that the developer was encouraged to pursue, in partnership with the City. The
Developer and the City are discussing opportunities with provincial and federal levels of
government concerning aspects of the development such as affordable housing, sustainable
development, employment generation, small business support.
2) Public-private
The City worked closely with the adjacent land owner of the 3.5-acre parcel in the centre of
the Dockside Lands. An agreement in principle was reached to develop all the lands
consistently with the Development Concept. He also entered into a cross-contamination
agreement with the City to address outstanding environmental liabilities resulting from
former land sales between the two parties.
The Development Concept and the RFP process were set up to provide an innovative and
competitive land sales and design process. Through extensive community consultation, the
City had determined the main components of the project. The development community used
its expertise to prepare detailed development proposals. The strengths of both partners with
community involvement were utilized together. A true partnership with the development
proponent was sought, wherein the comparative advantages of the City and proponent were
utilized.
4
In addition, during the evaluation and negotiating stages, the City acknowledged it didn’t
always have the requisite expertise in-house and engaged “subject matter experts” in the
fields of development pro-forma development and analysis, market risk analysis,
environmental remediation, public process facilitation, cost analysis, LEED certification,
affordable housing, transportation/engineering, zoning/planning, and municipal law.
Transferability:
The unique individual components of the project, described above, were integrated into the
overall project management, which resulted in one of the most innovative redevelopment
proposals by a Canadian municipality. And unlike our American neighbours, the project was
achieved without any federal or provincial assistance programs.
The processes that would have applicability and transferability to UBCM members:
1) Establish project team structure that supports the overall project objectives – for Dockside
these were to ensure due diligence was carried, the overall process was fair and open, as
well as inclusive for all stakeholders. At different stages the Steering Committee,
Community Advisory Committee, Project Working Team, Evaluation Team and
Negotiating Team were established to ensure these objectives were met.
2) Build the broadest possible knowledge base around the opportunities and challenges
around a project – from the social, environmental and economic perspectives, and know
which consultants to involve at which stages. This provides Council with the best tools
for decision making.
3) Organize the project and documentation such that each step builds logically on the
previous step, providing greater clarity of process and requisite “touch-points” during
evaluation and negotiation.
4) Involve a community representative and fairness advisor in the RFP process.
5) Maintain a balanced sense of value, incorporating all aspects of the triple bottom line
from the initial pre-planning stage through to the proposal evaluation and negotiation
process.
6) Support and build partnerships where feasible to ensure project success and support –
with the community, other levels of government, and between Council and municipal
staff.
5