COMMITTEE of the WHOLE Monday, December 12, 2016 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, December 12, 2016 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers

(Please note that all proceedings of Committee of the Whole Meetings are video recorded)

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. CLOSED MEETING (if required)

2.1. Motion to Close: Recommendation: That Council convene a closed meeting pursuant to the following subsection of Section 90(1) of the Community Charter.  (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a position as an employee of the municipality.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. PRESENTATIONS

5. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Keating Business District Final Report

The final report will be presented at a January, 2017 meeting of the Committee of the Whole meeting to provide the necessary time for the consultant to finalize their report.

5.2. Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay Pg. 4 - 82

Correspondence referred from November 21, 2016 Regular Council Meeting:  Central Saanich Marine Society, November 14, 2016  J. Tidman, November 15, 2016  J. Wake, November 16, 2016  G. Rogers November 16, 2016  T. Peard, November 16, 2016  J. Trueman, November 17, 2016  K. & T. Schibli, November 17, 2016

Additional Correspondence received after the November 21, 2016 Regular Council Meeting:  T. Coward, November 21, 2016  MLA G. Holman, November 21, 2016  T. Hackett, November 22, 2016  Photos Received Anonymously December 12, 2016  Recommendation: With regard to the issues in Brentwood Bay discussed in the staff memorandum of December 4, 2016, it is recommended that Council take a phased approach:

Short term: 1. the District hold a public information meeting to gather feedback on the points raised and confirm or add to the understanding of the issues being experienced by the community in Brentwood Bay; and, 2. Council request that the provincial and federal governments provide additional resources for the proper removal and disposal of derelict and abandoned vessels, buoys and other marine refuse.

Medium term: 3. having gathered public input, Council indicate whether taking on a more direct role in the monitoring, regulation and enforcement of activities in Brentwood Bay is to be pursued as a municipal priority; and, if so, 4. Council reach out to the Council of Tsartlip First Nation to gauge if there is a desire to work together to jointly develop a management plan for Brentwood Bay; 5. Council direct staff to prepare cost estimates for: the development of new regulatory bylaws; preparation of an application for a provincial Licence; new resources for communication, monitoring and enforcement; and any new capital improvements, for consideration in the budget and five-year financial plan; 6. Council direct staff to draft terms of reference for a Technical Advisory Committee to advise Council on the development of a new management plan for Brentwood Bay including new regulations covering moorage and live-aboards, backed by a provincial Licence of Occupation; 7. Council consider inviting members of the CSPS Saanich Inlet Working Group to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee; 8. Council direct staff to proceed with a District-initiated bylaw process and application for provincial Licence of Occupation, public engagement and communication strategy.

6. COMMUNITY, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & FACILITIES

7. PARKS & RECREATION

8. PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION

Committee of the Whole Agenda December 12, 2016 Page 2 of 119 8.1. Removal of Two Derelict/Abandoned Vessels Pg. 83 - 84 Recommendation: That Council authorize staff to undertake the necessary work to remove two derelict/abandoned vessels in Brentwood Bay to the maximum cost of $18,000.

8.2. Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Pg. 85 - 104 Information System Bylaws Recommendation: 1. That Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 be read a second and third time. 2. That Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016 be given three readings.

9. WATER & WASTE MANAGEMENT

10. ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE

10.1. Long Term Financial Plan Pg. 105 - 119 Recommendation: That Council approve the 2016 Long Term Financial Plan as proposed.

11. NEW BUSINESS

11.1. Capital Integrated Services and Governance Initiative

The Capital Integrated Services and Governance Initiative - Report Out Meeting for the Peninsula municipalities has been confirmed to be taking place at 3:00 pm on December 15 in Sidney in Room #2 of the Mary Winspear Centre.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Committee of the Whole Agenda December 12, 2016 Page 3 of 119 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

For the Committee of the Whole meeting on December 12, 2016

To: Patrick Robins File: 5280-09 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Bruce Greig Priority: Strategic Director of Planning and Operational Building Services

Date: December 04, 2016

Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

RECOMMENDATIONS: With regard to the issues in Brentwood Bay discussed in the staff memorandum of December 4, 2016, it is recommended that Council take a phased approach:

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 4 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

resources for communication, monitoring and enforcement; and any new capital improvements, for consideration in the budget and five-year financial plan; 6. Council direct staff to draft terms of reference for a Technical Advisory Committee to advise Council on the development of a new management plan for Brentwood Bay including new regulations covering moorage and live-aboards, backed by a provincial Licence of Occupation; 7. Council consider inviting members of the CSPS Saanich Inlet Working Group to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee; 8. Council direct staff to proceed with a District-initiated bylaw process and application for provincial Licence of Occupation, public engagement and communication strategy.

BACKGROUND: At its June 6, 2016, meeting Council received a staff report on the regulation of moorage and other uses within Brentwood Bay, and gave priority to an initiative to investigate a new municipal regulatory scheme for monitoring and enforcement of such marine activities. The Council motion initiated a process of information gathering, identifying regulatory options and investigating how other municipalities have addressed similar issues. Council also directed that an initial step in developing a management plan for Brentwood Bay, which may include approaching the Province for a Licence of Occupation, should include consultation with the Tsartlip First Nation to see if there is potential to work together on these issues.

This report overviews the issues observed, legal authority, challenges of enforcement, experiences of other jurisdictions, parallel efforts underway, potential resources necessary and approaches to communication.

DISCUSSION: A. Issues Observed

This summer, the Central Saanich Police Service, in cooperation with the RCMP marine unit, provided safety patrols of the Brentwood Bay area (Saturday fireworks nights plus additional Thursdays). During the same period, the municipal Bylaw Enforcement Officer responded to a number of complaints which are somewhat typical for the summer months: these include overnight moorage of vessels at the municipal wharf, dumping of garbage on the wharf and at public beach access points, parking on nearby roads, unsightly vessels and concerns of pollution caused by live-aboards. The following is a snapshot of observations gathered during these monitoring and enforcement activities:

Number of boats observed moored in Brentwood Bay: 76 Number of buoys: 111 Buoys complying with Transport Canada standards: 50%

Page 5 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

Number of dinghies, canoes and kayaks at public beach access points: 35 Number of dinghies observed moored at the municipal wharf: up to 20

Environmental impacts

A number of citizens have expressed concerns about pollution of the marine environment of the Saanich Inlet resulting from:  inadvertent or deliberate dumping of garbage by boat owners;  derelict or inadequately fastened boats or other floating objects (sections of dock floats, barrels, etc.) which may break loose in storms;  derelict or abandoned vessels sinking when unattended;  improper maintenance polluting the water (e.g. paint scraping and sanding, spills of fuel and oil); and,  untreated sewage dumped by boats including live-aboards.

The Saanich Inlet Protection Society has requested that the municipality install a sewage pump- out facility on the municipal wharf in Brentwood Bay.

Aesthetics and nuisance

Additional concerns have been raised for the impact that moored boats and other objects may have on the view and residents' enjoyment of the beauty of the bay. Concerns have been expressed for the visual impact from both the concentration of boats and the appearance of individual vessels (tattered tarps, boats rafted with other objects, general disrepair).

Congestion

Concerns have been raised of moored or anchored boats impeding navigation within Brentwood Bay. Some concerns have referred to keeping the navigation channels (which have been defined by Transport Canada) clear. The Saanich Inlet Protection Society has requested that the District take responsibility for delineating the navigation channels with standard marker buoys.

Other, more general concerns expressed about congestion within the bay may point to moored vessels acting as obstacles to near-shore navigation and recreational use. The protected waters of Brentwood Bay are an attractive place to moor larger vessels (which when in use may spend most of their time elsewhere in the inlet, the Gulf Islands or further afield). Yet the protected waters of this "parking area" for larger vessels are also a desirable destination for

Page 6 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay smaller vessels such as kayaks, canoes, rowboats, paddle boards and sailing dinghies. This may point to a need to have clear areas for navigation appropriate for both larger and smaller vessels, separate from delineated areas where larger boats may be moored when not in use.

Parking

Bylaw complaints have been received about vehicle parking on public roads near Brentwood Bay which may stem from boating activities including live-aboards. Municipal bylaws allow parking for up to 72 hours on public roads where safe and unless otherwise marked. No "resident-only" on-street parking regulations have been enacted in Central Saanich. Parking bylaw issues are not the focus of this report.

B. Legal Authority and Regulatory Options

Staff sought an updated legal opinion from the municipal solicitors on the District's authority to regulate moorage and other activities in the area of Brentwood Bay which falls within the municipal boundaries. Recent court decisions have shed light on the scope of municipal jurisdiction, and have helped clarify the line beyond which municipal regulations might intrude into federal jurisdiction.

Within the federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping, under common law there is an incidental right to anchor temporarily "for a reasonable time, for a reasonable purpose" if connected to active navigation use; such anchoring is immune from provincial or municipal regulation. This temporary right does not extend to a right of long-term anchorage or moorage. There is room, therefore, for municipal regulations (under the zoning powers granted to municipalities by the Local Government Act or the licensing powers under the Community Charter), to regulate land uses such as the mooring of boats - so long as the municipal regulations do not restrict those federal rights of navigation and temporary moorage.

Municipal bylaws most typically deal with land use regulations as they apply to parcels of privately owned land or municipal public places such as roads and park land. The waters of Brentwood Bay cover Crown (i.e. public) land under provincial ownership. Since the regulatory powers held by a municipal government are delegated from the Province, a Licence of Occupation from the province would confer additional support for new municipal regulations applying to the water-covered area of the District within Brentwood Bay. The licence might be for public recreation and traditional harvest uses, for example - excluding other uses such as long-term moorage and/or residential occupation from designated areas covered by the licence.

As any new regulations are developed, consultation with both the federal government (Transport Canada) and provincial government (Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations) is recommended at an early stage.

Limiting areas of anchorage or mooring for the sole purpose of clearing the view of the water from shore, to improve scenic vistas, would likely not be deemed to be within municipal authority. Some degree of regulation of the visual appearance and state of repair of boats and other objects in the bay may well be within the jurisdiction of the municipality. With respect to unsightly or dilapidated vessels, the municipal Parks, Beaches and Other Public Places Bylaw No. 804, adopted in 1985, imposes regulations in public places within the District. This bylaw regulates matters such as littering, damage or removal of vegetation. The bylaw does not specifically refer to unsightly vessels or littering in marine areas. The municipal Unsightly

Page 7 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

Premises and Noxious Weeds Bylaw No. 1845 regulates the state of private property and structures or buildings located on private land. If Council desired to enact regulations for the appearance or state of repair of vessels located in a public place (Brentwood Bay), such authority likely exists under the Community Charter. Staff would recommend that the practicality of investigation and enforcement be carefully considered (access to investigate, serve notice and identify contact information for vessel owner) before enacting such a bylaw. Again, early consultation with the provincial and federal agencies is recommended to ensure any municipal bylaw applied within the marine area would not contradict areas of authority of senior governments (e.g. boat construction and safety standards).

C. Municipal Enforcement

Any potential new regulations need to be carefully reviewed to ensure they will be enforceable in a manner which is practical and makes efficient use of limited municipal resources. Currently, as with all municipal bylaws, staff investigate bylaw infractions based upon complaint. Enforcement measures follow the bylaw enforcement policy adopted by Council to prioritize complaints presenting a risk to health, safety or damage to the natural environment. Investigation of bylaw complaints related to vessels moored in Brentwood Bay are complicated by two factors: first, the difficulty of obtaining access over the water and, second, vessels have no "address" and many are not registered making it difficult or impossible to identify ownership. Enacting a mooring licence regulation could enable the municipality to identify boats and the contact information of their owners - potentially enabling much quicker communication if there were a bylaw issue (or an emergency situation).

D. Other Jurisdictions

Marine navigation is the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. Environmental protection in marine areas falls under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard, and also under the provincial Ministry of Environment. While regulatory authority and responsibility rests with these agencies, achieving resolution on the issues identified in this report has often been frustrated by two factors: the problems identified are not of a scale sufficient to trigger a response by senior levels of government, and/or the agencies involved do not have adequate resources to act.

Central Saanich should continue to work with provincial and federal agencies to partner, where possible, to jointly improve marine issues. The authority of Transport Canada to remove non- compliant mooring buoys, vessels and other objects causing problems in Brentwood Bay will continue to be a key factor in avoiding environmental damage or unsafe conditions. In emergent cases of potential marine pollution, contacting the Coast Guard remains the appropriate protocol for investigation and response.

Other local governments have taken steps to regulate moorage and other uses in their local waters. Staff engaged Gerard LeBlanc of Cedar Coast Planning Consultants to investigate the approaches taken and experiences of a handful of local governments - including the recently publicized efforts of the City of Victoria and the City of Port Moody. While the particulars of each municipality are different, there are lessons to be learned from these efforts (see Attachments). The Port Moody regulations rely on the federal jurisdiction of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority for monitoring and compliance; a resource unavailable to the municipality in the case of Brentwood Bay. The City of Victoria regulations and Licence of Occupation restrict moorage to a short term use only; in the case of Brentwood Bay,staff expect that the

Page 8 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay continuation of some long term moorage is expected. For both Port Moody and the City of Victoria, extensive public engagement was undertaken prior to enacting new regulations.

If the municipality were to adopt new regulations of marine uses in Brentwood Bay, they could have an effect on neighbouring jurisdictions; most immediately the Tsartlip First Nation, CRD Juan de Fuca Electoral Area of Willis Point and BC Parks in Tod Inlet. Impacts may also be felt to a lesser degree in North Saanich, Sidney, other municipalities in the CRD and the Cowichan Valley Regional District. Any proposed changes to municipal regulations should be communicated to these local jurisdictions well in advance and with an eye to coordinating efforts wherever possible.

E. Parallel Efforts

A number of interested and affected stakeholders have been working on these issues for, in some cases, many years. Earlier this year the Central Saanich Police Board was approached by the Saanich Inlet Protection Society (SIPS) which led to the establishment of a working group. The Saanich Inlet Working Group is composed of representatives from:  Saanich Inlet Protection Society  Central Saanich Maritime Society  Tsartlip First Nation  Sidney/North Saanich RCMP  RCMP South Island Integrated Marine Unit  Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations  Transport Canada - Navigation Protection Program  Central Saanich Council  Central Saanich Police Service

The Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) has stepped forward in response to the initial request from SIPS. The CSPS are a willing participant in working with community and enforcement partners however have limited jurisdiction in many of the areas of concern including the derelict vessels. Competing values and uses in Brentwood Bay engage a broad range of issues and jurisdictions. Staff therefore recommend, if Council decides that taking steps to effect changes within Brentwood Bay is a priority, that Council engage this stakeholder group more directly by appointing a Select Committee of Council and inviting their participation (including the ongoing participation by CSPS).

Also, in October a meeting of the Saanich Inlet Round Table involved 80 participants, with representatives from the above organizations plus:  Parks Canada  Peninsula Streams Society  SeaChange Marine Conservation Society  Bamberton Historical Society  University of Victoria  Brentwood Power Squadron  Shorekeepers  Cowichan Bay Shipwatch Society  Harbour Authority Association of BC  Central Saanich Community Association  Willis Point Community Association

Page 9 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

 Sidney Anglers  Capital Regional District  Cowichan Valley Regional District

Clearly there is great interest in protecting the environmental qualities, recreational opportunities and natural beauty of the Saanich Inlet and Brentwood Bay. This report is based on input from staff, the municipal solicitors and consultant research; it has not received input from the above stakeholders or other interested Central Saanich residents. Staff recommend that the District seek public input to inform its decisions, to ensure any actions align with community expectations.

F. Resources

Council must consider whether the municipality wishes to take on a greater role in regulating, educating, monitoring and enforcing regulations in areas where senior levels of government already have jurisdiction. All these actions take time and resources to put in place, and must compete with other demands for municipal services. Similarly, new capital expenditures lead to added operating and maintenance costs which also must be considered. That said, if Council wishes to see changes in Brentwood Bay it will likely require some action on the part of the municipality.

The initial efforts by the City of Victoria to regulate moorage in the Gorge Waterway are budgeted in excess of $100,000 annual additional staff resources - for an area much smaller than Brentwood Bay. This does not include legal costs which arise from enforcing the municipal bylaw through the courts, if challenged.

G. Communication

Any regulatory changes would require ongoing opportunities for public engagement and outreach. Even if direct regulatory changes are not pursued by Central Saanich, the municipality could play a role in providing information to residents and visitors informing them of the issues and clarifying what can be opaque layers of jurisdiction and regulation.

------

SOME OPTIONS:

Not surprisingly, no simple solution exists to solve a complex, multi-jurisdictional suite of issues which arise from the various activities in Brentwood Bay. If the District were to take a more active role in managing the use of the land and water in this area, and the impacts which result from those uses, then a multi-pronged approach would be necessary. Staff are not advocating that the District should take on any or all of the following actions; rather the following options are presented for Council consideration while deciding to what degree the District may wish to step in to take responsibility for regulating aspects of the use of Brentwood Bay. Given the many options, stakeholders and interests involved, it is expected that a course forward will be determined after completing a series of steps of consultation as outlined at the end of this report. There may be some short-term actions, however, which Council may wish to direct.

The following options are provided for further discussion.

Page 10 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

Direct actions:

The municipality could adjust its services and physical infrastructure to alleviate some of the issues. Direct actions could affect staffing, work plans and operating budgets. 1. install public pump-out facility at municipal wharf; 2. install weather & moorage "traffic conditions" webcam to monitor the municipal wharf area; 3. provide garbage bin and collection from the municipal wharf; 4. install marker buoys delineating the navigation channels within Brentwood Bay; 5. install new signage at the municipal wharf notifying that discharge of raw sewage or other waste in the Saanich Inlet is prohibited (and just gross), and promoting a "pump it: don't dump it" message; 6. create program of incentives and rebates for (or provide free) basic self-contained marine toilets for live-aboards; 7. investigate incentives for private marinas to install, maintain, operate and make publicly available additional marine sewage pump-out facilities; 8. lease patrol vessel, to be based at municipal wharf for summer months; 9. hire additional, marine-focused bylaw "education and compliance" staff for summer months;

Communication:

The municipality could develop communication messages and materials (for both physical and digital distribution) for the following: 1. promoting safe and responsible uses of the bay; 2. providing contacts and answers to frequent questions and points of confusion (e.g. who to call when); 3. building awareness among boaters of possible regulatory changes; and, 4. agency contacts and resource information on housing alternatives - for live-aboards who may have limited housing options.

Education:

The municipality could raise awareness of the issues, the impacts and the alternatives available to boaters by: 1. continuing regular patrols and expand outreach to boaters; 2. considering a "positive ticketing" approach (e.g. coupon to local marine supply stores) and incentives; 3. inviting boat and buoy owners to join mailing list - to enable updates on regulations and public events; 4. providing communication materials to community groups and partners who can also help "spread the message" while also providing their considerable expertise and experience.

Regulation:

The municipality could consider new and revised regulatory bylaws for the following: 1. revise the OCP Marina Development Permit Area Guidelines to clarify that marina pump- out facilities are expected to be maintained, operable and made available for public use;

Page 11 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

2. revise the Land Use Bylaw to permit a number of live-aboards (e.g. 10% of slips) within commercial marinas (subject to vessels having and using holding tanks, sewage pumpout provided at the slip and a dedicated parking space provided for each live- aboard); 3. explore the development of an "unsightly vessels" definition and regulation; 4. define within the zoning regulations, and designate areas of Brentwood Bay on the zoning map for: a. no anchoring (e.g. federally-designated navigation channels); b. short-term anchoring (e.g. up to 48 hours); and, c. long-term moorage; 5. develop a licensing regulation (akin to an annual dog licence) for placement of a mooring buoy and/or anchoring within a long-term moorage zone. Such regulations could include: a. requirements for spacing or setbacks; b. limits on the total number or density of moored vessels; and/or, c. priorities for issuing licences based on municipal policy to be developed (e.g. priority to adjacent upland properties, residents within Brentwood Bay, residents of Central Saanich, etc.).

The municipality could also explore options to create regulations defining areas where no anchoring and/or no overnight anchoring would be permitted, and a licensing scheme for short- term anchorage (similar to the approach taken by Port Moody). This would require, however, additional authority granted by the federal government. From the public comments and complaints received to date, it appears that short-term anchoring does not present a significant community concern - rather the concerns centre on issues with long-term moorage in the bay.

Any changes to the zoning regulations and/or buoy licensing regulation would need to be developed with early consultation and coordination with neighbouring jurisdictions including Tsartlip First Nation, CRD Juan de Fuca Electoral Area (Willis Point) and BC Parks. If a new regulatory scheme were to be drafted, the District should initiate discussions with the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) and Transport Canada on applying for a licence of occupation from the province over areas of Brentwood Bay.

If a defined area for short-term anchorage is identified as a preferred option, exploratory work would need to be done to assess the environmental sensitivity of the seabed within the proposed area and any effects or mitigation measures appropriate for a more concentrated anchoring use within that area. Staff expect this would be necessary preparatory work for an application for licence of occupation from the province.

Monitoring and Enforcement:

It would take time to lay the groundwork to enact new regulations affecting moorage. The municipality could begin, however, to place greater priority on initial bylaw education, voluntary compliance and enforcement efforts. Staff suggest that this could initially include: 1. obtain the use of a boat, based at the municipal wharf for the summer months; and, 2. hire additional seasonal bylaw staff to add capacity with a focus on education, outreach and investigation of activities in Brentwood Bay.

As an alternative, the District could investigate whether some of these initial activities could be undertaken by a willing partner organization.

Page 12 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

Cost Considerations:

The following are ballpark costs for some of the elements mentioned in this report, for discussion purposes. If directed by Council to explore any of these further, more detailed cost analysis would be prepared for consideration during deliberations on the budget and five-year financial plan:

Potential Initial costs: marker buoys ($1500 $36,000 x 24) wharf pump-out $90,000 facility wharf webcam $3,000 wharf garbage bins $400 porta-potty $4,000 distribution additional signage $2,000 application for $50,000 Licence of Occupation public engagement $25,000 Annual Operating costs: additional compliance $45,000 staff (6 mo.) pump-out op. & $4,500 maint. communication $7,000 garbage collection @ $4,000+ wharf patrol boat $6,000

The above are rough costs and, if so directed, staff would seek more detailed cost estimates for budget purposes at the time any of these elements were being looked at in more detail. The above does not include additional staff time or resources for developing new regulations or the management and support of committees. It is expected that these costs would be in addition to current bylaw enforcement costs (e.g. for removing and impounding dinghies moored overnight at the municipal wharf) which are expected to continue at a similar level barring a change in regulations or service levels..

Lobbying:

Council should continue to request support from senior levels of government, as these issues relate to areas of provincial and federal primary jurisdiction. Staff suggest that requests for support focus on the following areas:

Page 13 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

1. financial assistance for disposal of derelict vessels and marine waste (including legal costs), via a cost recovery fund or creation of regional facilities; 2. greater resources for provincial and federal agencies (Coast Guard, Transport Canada, Ministry of Environment) to enable these agency to carry out their responsibilities for early and ongoing response to vessels of concern; and, 3. as the provincial and federal governments continue negotiation on the establishment of a National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) reserve including the Saanich Inlet, that the municipality request there be no exclusion of areas with concentrations of existing tenures - such as Brentwood Bay.

If the NMCA were established, it would place jurisdiction for all marine activities with a single federal agency. This could solve much of the confusion about authority for addressing issues on the water. Excluding pockets from the NMCA, however, would exacerbate the patchwork of jurisdiction which currently exists.

Partnerships:

Council has already identified the Tsartlip First Nation as a stakeholder for early and ongoing consultation on any regulatory changes being contemplated. Exploring whether there is interest to develop a joint management plan for Brentwood Bay with Tsartlip is a promising approach on a number of levels. As well, if new regulations backed by a Licence of Occupation were being considered, consultation with Tsartlip First Nation would be essential to ensure that the details of the Licence would be consistent with the Douglas Treaty rights of Tsartlip and other Wsanec first nations. To this end, Council might inquire whether Tsartlip First Nation would be interested in developing a joint application for the Licence.

If a new regulatory scheme for moorage were being considered, the District might also approach the CRD and BC Parks about the practicality and advisability of enacting parallel regulations for the areas of Brentwood Bay and Tod Inlet within their jurisdictions. As we have seen with the recent actions by the City of Victoria in the Gorge Waterway, new regulations can have the effect of simply relocating an issue. If coordinated bylaws were being considered, opportunities to share costs on monitoring and enforcement should also be discussed with interested agencies.

Next Steps:

Staff recommend that appropriate next steps could include:  hold a community information meeting to gather feedback at this early stage;  having heard that public input, Council consider whether pursuing new regulations is a desired step for the municipality; and, if so,  engage with Tsartlip First Nation to explore the potential for partnering in developing a management plan for Brentwood Bay;  direct staff to prepare a first draft of initial bylaw(s);  draft terms of reference and establish a Technical Advisory Committee;  engage other jurisdictions (including Transport Canada and FLNRO);  develop a communications plan to create a broad awareness of the issues and possible changes well in advance of any new regulations coming in to force; and,  engage the public on new draft regulations.

Page 14 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 04, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Moorage and Other Uses in Brentwood Bay

CONCLUSION: Other local governments have faced similar challenges in responding to issues within the marine areas of their municipalities. Each situation is unique and, as seen in the approach taken by Port Moody and Victoria, the path forward would need to be navigated carefully to respond to local interests and conditions. Staff recommend that Council consider the contents of this report - along with what has been heard to date from the public and stakeholders - and proceed with the initial phase of seeking public input on the elements and process outlined in this report in the short term. With budget preparation now underway in all municipal departments, if any initial direct actions (i.e. special projects, new infrastructure and/or increased service levels) were to be considered as priorities in the next year, then Council should indicate that they be included now for deliberation in the 2017 budget process.

Following a process of public input in the near term, it is also recommended that Council provide an indication of whether there is a desire to take a more active role in the regulation, monitoring and enforcement of activities in Brentwood Bay and, if so, direct that the District initiate a regulatory bylaw process and make application to the province for a Licence of Occupation.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Greig Director of Planning & Building Services

ATTACHMENTS: Brentwood Bay zoning Administrator’s Recommendation: Map showing navigation channels I concur with the recommendation Memo from Cedar Coast Planning contained in this report. Consultants, Nov. 30, 2016; Temporary Patrick Robins Moorage Considerations for the District of Chief Administrative Officer Central Saanich. Meeting notes from the Saanich Inlet Working Group Nov. 30, 2016 Meeting notes from Saanich Inlet Round Table Oct. 13, 2016. Transport Canada - presentation on Addressing Abandoned, Derelict and Wrecked Vessels. Parks Canada - presentation on the Proposed Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA Reserve

Page 15 of 119 R2 R1S R-1S C4 C6 R-1Z P2 C3 C3 W2 P2 C6A P1 W2 RM4 P2 W1 R P2

C6 P2 W2 P2

W2 R1S C6 RM1 P2 RM1 R2 R1 P2 W1 P2 P1 RM1 R1

W2A P2 RE2 R1 P2 C8 C8 R-1S

W1 P2 R2 R1

C5 RE1 P2 P2 W1 RE P2

Page 16 of 119 RV2QR2PW2x

e ð

IPQ2PV2HQ2

RV2QR2PP2x

f ð

IPQ2PV2HU2 i RV2QR2PI2x2IPQ2PU2SQ2

h RV2QR2PH2x2IPQ2PU2SS2 ð

RV2QR2IU2x

g ð

IPQ2PV2HT2

frentwood2fy2E2xvigtion2ere

ere2to2remin2ler2of2vessels2nd2moorings

Page 17of119 to2permit2fe2xvigtion

xvigtion2ere2hefinition

QH2metres2xorthest2of2oint2e2t2IRI°2to2oint2i

QH2metres2xorth2of2oint2f2t2IHT°2to2oint2h

QH2metres2outh2of2oint2g2t2TS°2to2oint2h

essels2nd2wooring2fuoys2must2not2ostrut2

or2restrit2ess2to2privte2doksF

eug2PHII

CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS [email protected] MEMO

To: Bruce Greig, Director of Planning District of Central Saanich

From: Gerard V. LeBlanc Cedar Coast Planning Consultants

Date: November 30, 2016

Subject: Temporary Moorage Considerations for the District of Central Saanich

Issue: Based on resident complaints staff recommended to Council on June 6, 2016 that a new municipal regulatory scheme for monitoring and enforceement of moorage, live-aboards, and dumping, and/or other activities in Brentwood Bay be investigated. This would be prior to applying for a Licence of Occupation (LOC) from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations (FLNRO). The staff recommendation is an outcome based on a Notice of Motion to Council for staff to initiate consideration of a Licence of Occupation (LOC) for Brentwood Bay. Staff take the poosition that concurrent steps need to be considered within the DCS along with an application for an LOC as a concentrated approach to deal with the issue of temporary moorage. As noted in the staff report the purpose and value of the LOC is to solidify support for the municipal regulation. An assessment of initiatives to control temporary anchoring and moorage, live-aboards, derelict vessels, enforcement issues and other matters in the cities of Victoria, Port Moody and West Kelowna provides the basis for this recommendation. It is noted only the City of Victoria has obtained an LOC from the province to deal with the issues noted.

Background Staff have investigated the steps taken in three municipalities and have found different approaches have been effective for each of them. In West Kelowna and Port Moody the initiatives are in place and operational. In the City of Victoria, new zoning is in place for the Gorge Waterway as is an LOC for the area zoned as Gorge Watterway Park Zone. It remains for a management plan required as part of the LOC granted to the City to be prepared for the affected area of the Gorge fronting on Banfield Parrk. In addition the City is investigating different methods to remove live-aboards and any derelict vessels located within the LOC. Specific discussion of the three different approaches is provided in subsequent sections.

1 | P aage

Page 18 of 119

CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

Discussion The following discussion provides information on the temporary anchoring/moorage regulations and schemes within the Cities of West Kelowna, Port Moody and Victoria.

City of West Kelowna

The legal basis for municipal control over temporary moorage/anchorage and related issues has its origin with a BC Court of Appeal case focusing on Gelatly Bay on Okanogan Lake within the City boundaries. As noted previously by staff, although municipalities can permit or prohibit the use of land covered by water through zoning, the regulations put into place must permit some short-term anchoring and cannot impede navigation to be consistent with Federal powers.

The approach taken in West Kelowna is the most straightforward and simplest of the three jurisdictions reviewed. Discussions and correspondence with City of West Kelowna staff indicate that temporary moorage/anchoring is regulated through the City’s zoning over the water. In summary, the City has four ‘Water Zones’ with the following permitted/prohibited uses:

W-1 Recreation Water Use Primary Permitted Uses - Docks, wharves & Mooring buoys as an accessory use to the abutting upland parcel.

Accessory Uses - Moorage accessory to the use of the abutting upland parcel.

W-2 Intensive Water Use Primary Permitted Uses - Docks, wharves & Mooring buoys as an accessory use to the abutting upland parcel.

Temporary moorage for periods less than 48 hours.

Accessory Uses- Moorage accessory to the use of the abutting upland parcel.

W-3 Commercial Water Use Primary Permitted Uses - Temporary moorage for periods less than 48 hours.

Wharves & mooring buoys accessory to the use of the immediately abutting upland parcel.

W-4 Pritchard Canal Water Use

Primary Permitted Uses - Docks and Wharves accessory to the use of the immediately abutting upland parcel.

Accessory Uses - Moorage accessory to the use of the abutting upland parcel.

2 | Page

Page 19 of 119 CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

The use of a vessel for residential purposes is prohibited by the General Provisions of the West Kelowna Zoning Bylaw. Enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw is carried out by the City’s Bylaw Enforcement Officers. There is no designated moorage area in West Kelowna and control over moorage is adequately dealt with through zoning.

City of Port Moody

Port Moody Designated Anchorage Area (DAA) Port Moody has adopted a regulatory scheme to manage temporary moorage in a DAA. This regulatory approach has been initiated and completed in conjunction with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority operating as Port Metro Vancouver; a Federal Crown corporation accountable to the Minister of Transport. It is the principal authority (equivalent to Transport Canada) for shipping and port-related land use, navigation, shipping, and sea activities within the Port of Vancouver. The City of Port Moody worked closely with Port Metro Vancouver in the establishment of the DAA.

The DAA lies in a small portion of Port Moody Inlet within Burrard Inlet. It provides anchorage for up to twenty (20) recreational vessels on a temporary basis. The City has the flexibility to adjust the boundaries to provide for public safety during events and activities in the inlet, otherwise the boundaries are set. The DAA permits overnight stays but prohibits docks from being built within the DAA as well as prohibiting any live-aboards. No sewage discharge services (pump out stations) are provided in the DAA; sewage is prohibited from being discharged in the Inlet.

The City has control over the entire DAA and determines how it is to be used and administered. The regulations established for the DAA require boaters to obtain anchoring permits; anchoring outside the DAA is prohibited. Boaters wishing to stay overnight in their boats must obtain a DAA permit by registering with the City. Boats can be anchored for up to 21 nights during a 40-day period within the DAA. When that period expires they must relocate to a marina or to another permitted location.

Boaters must respect the terms and conditions expressed in the moorage agreement established with the permit issued them and must moor in the DAA. Registration can be made on-line and requires a refundable $500 deposit; a $12-daily moorage charge applies. In addition, a $30 administration fee is charged to the registered craft and boater.

Responsibilities in the DAA are divided along jurisdictional lines with Port Metro Vancouver. Port Moody’s responsibilities within the DAA include:  Access to and within the DAA;  Administration of its operations, including fees and charges,  Limiting the duration of anchorage;  Maintenance standards for recreational vessels within the DAA;  Maintaining and replacing marker buoys,  Adhering to applicable bylaws (shipping & navigation),  Specified insurance requirements,  Ensuring environmental security and regulation,  Removal of any boats (derelict, in trespass or otherwise) from the DAA, and  Providing a safe work environment.

3 | Page

Page 20 of 119 CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

Port Metro Vancouver’s responsibilities in monitoring the area outside of the Designated Anchorage Area include:

 Initial purchase and installation of four marker buoys to show the DAA boundary,  Patrolling and monitoring the DAA for compliance,  Removing boats or vessels that anchor outside the DAA,  Making information about the no anchorage area widely available by reasonable means,  Removing derelict boats and vessels, debris and items that may affect navigation, and  Raising awareness with boaters that they are only allowed to anchor in the DAA.

The Port Moody DAA came into effect in July 2016. Additional detail on the successes and shortcomings of the operation of the initiative during its first summer of operation have not been received at the time of writing. It is anticipated they will be received prior to the December 12, 2016 meeting of the District’s Committee of the Whole.

City of Victoria

Gorge Waterway Park Zone The City received an LOC from FLNRO in October 2015. The City intends to develop a management plan to deal with park management and concerns and issues identified at community meetings and the Public Hearing for the required rezoning of the area.. Environmental considerations are also to be part of the plan developed by the City.

The City amended its Zoning Bylaw to correct an inconsistency with Federal regulations requiring that a local jurisdiction, when regulating use of the surface of the water in its bylaw must provide for short-term anchoring in accordance with the Federal power over navigation. The original section of the City’s Zoning Bylaw prohibited overnight moorage or anchoring. The amendment adopted by the City brings zoning for this area of the Gorge into consistency with both the recent BC Court of Appeal decision in West Kelowna and with Federal regulations.

The Gorge Waterway Park Zone implements the following:  Establishes a temporary moorage period of 48 consecutive hours;  As a secondary control vessel moorage cannot to exceed 72 hours in a 30-day period;  The original 48 hours is considered part of the total 72 hours;  Moves from prohibiting overnight moorage to permitting;  Bylaw adopted in response to public concerns over: o Access to water; o Fuel and lubricant spills and other environmental issues; o Degradation of shoreline and erosion as a result of boat access; o Noise and nuisance impacts on the public use of Banfield Park; o Impacts on the use of the Gorge Waterway for recreation; o Federal regulations over navigation.  Bylaw Implementation: o Enforcement through City Bylaw Enforcement Staff; o Support from Victoria PD; o Fire boats used for access; 4 | Page

Page 21 of 119 CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

o Public monitoring of and City response non-compliance; o Monitor mooring to determine if additional management measures would be beneficial to the public interest and waterway health.

Other City of Victoria Initiatives There are six or more live-aboards in this area of the Gorge Waterway. City staff have been directed to determine individualized strategies for relocating live-aboard residents. Concern has been expressed by some of the suitability of alternative means and locations in the context of affordable housing options for live-aboard residents.

A Letter of Notification was mailed to area residents, boaters and affected persons and a community (information) meeting and a Public Hearing were held on the proposed bylaw. The proposed regulations outlined therein were generally supported by the public. Some supporters preferred having no overnight moorage; some objectors wanted no regulation whatsoever and removal of all moorage restrictions.

There was public concern with the effects mooring and anchoring would have on the marine environment. As a result there was a call for an environmental study, particular since there is no upper threshold established for the number of boats permitted in the LOC. It is understood that the completion and implementation of a management plan for moorage and other uses of the Gorge Waterway Park is a Council requirement and is viewed as an appropriate response to expressed public concerns. A management plan could also limit the number of vessels to be permitted to moor/anchor in the Gorge Waterway.

The Notification Letter sent resulted in similar feedback voicing support for the proposed bylaw as at the community meeting and the Public Hearing. Concerns expressed in the feedback were related to problems associated with derelict and abandoned boats and their removal; the total number of boats permitted in the moorage area; that there be a focus on management of the Gorge Waterway by the City (this is perhaps being done by the CRD given the multiple jurisdictions involved); support for Federal requirements to not prohibit moorage/anchoring; environmental concerns; monitoring and enforcing moorage time limits; concerns for current live-aboard occupants including finding suitable alternative, affordable housing options for them.

It is evident the bylaw had its supporters and detractors but it is understood that for the most part there was support for the bylaw. Opposition centred on any restrictions being placed on moorage and permitting moorage anywhere; support was based on managing environmental and public access and use issues in the management plan.

Finally, the City had a Marine Surveyor determine the value of the live-aboards in the Gorge with a view to using City funds to purchase and remove the crafts – acting as a Receiver of Wrecks under TC authority. The result of the survey was that the value of the boats was determined to be higher than the financial capacity proposed by the City. As a result the city may have to proceed through injunctive action to remove the live-aboards and possibly the derelict vessels.

5 | Page

Page 22 of 119 CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

In summary, appropriate zoning is in place in the City to regulate temporary mooring and anchorage in the Gorge Waterway adjacent to Banfield Park. The Gorge Waterway Park Zone establishes the provisions controlling use of the water. The City has established its zoning regulations in the area defined in the LOC issued by the province. It is endeavouring to complete a management plan for the area that will add additional strength to the scheme to manage temporary anchoring in the area.

Regulations in Adjacent Jurisdictions

Saanich: controls an abutting portion of the Gorge Waterway; regulations prohibit float homes and live-aboards (use of vessels as residences); anchoring prohibited for a continuous period exceeding 72 hours.

Esquimalt: Gorge Waterway in Esquimalt is zoned M-4 – Marine Navigation and prohibits moorage; bylaw is being reviewed for lack of consistency with Federal regulations; there can only be incidental interference with navigation and shipping and mooring cannot be prohibited by a local government; must permit short-term anchoring so as to not intrude on Federal powers.

Legislative Considerations The District’s legal counsel has provided an extensive and comprehensive legal opinion on the various considerations DCS should give when considering the adoption of zoning temporary moorage regulations. They include existing zoning provisions, provincial and federal authorities and the Doctrine of Paramountcy, obtaining an LOC, considerations under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, regulatory schemes working elsewhere, among others, to initiate a workable scheme for the District in Brentwood Bay. The extensive opinion provided supports, and should guide, the establishment of regulatory controls and zoning provisions to deal with the temporary moorage and anchoring issue.

Summary It is assumed here that the District will wish to obtain an LOC from FLNRO whether it establishes a temporary anchoring or temporary moorage area in Brentwood Bay. The District will need to file an application with FLNRO stating the reasons and rationale for obtaining an LOC, its location and extent. Consultation with other local governments may be required and the District will want to consult closely with the Tsartlip First Nation on the issue of the use and also on an application to FLNRO for an LOC.

Part of the requirement of being granted an LOC will be the requirement to locate it where it causes least impact on navigation and shipping, have regard for existing navigation channels and having Coast Guard (CG) approved buoys marking the boundaries of the licence area. This would be required whether temporary mooring or anchorage were the selected alternative. If a temporary moorage approach is selected, all mooring ‘stations’ will need to meet CG specifications including bottom anchors/mooring blocks, chaining to the floating buoy(s) and marking of the buoy(s) to CG standards. These requirements are set out in TC’s policies and standards (currently under revision) for Private Mooring Buoys. CG considers any navigational aid owned by a municipal government to be private.

6 | Page

Page 23 of 119

CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016

For clarity, it is assumed anchoring permits a vessel owner to literally ‘drop anchor’ to secure their vessel. This will disturb the ocean bottom each time an anchor is dropped or weighed, thereby exacerbating disturbance of the bottom environment of Brentwood Bay. Over an extended period of time this could result in an underwater environment subjected to constant turnover and stress.

With an approach that permits temporary moorage it is assumed that a vessel owner would attach a line to a buoy anchored to a concrete mooring block sitting on the bottom of Brentwood Bay. Bottom disturbance would occur once over a specific area the size of the moorage block for each of the moorings established. It is possible/likely that the extent of disturbance would be considerably reduced with moorage than with anchoring as there would be less disturbance of the bottom of the Bay over time. Establishing moorage would most assuredly be more costly for the District but would likely have less of an impact environmentally on the bottom of Brentwood Bay.

Although only three jurisdictions have been examined in detail, it is evident that whether through zoning provisions alone or with zoning in effect along with a provincially granted LOC, a spatially-based, regulation-oriented approach works best to control temporary moorage and anchoring. Additional information will be provided when it is received from the City of Port Moody on their DAA.

More specifically for the District and Brentwood Bay, it will be necessary to clarify exactly where temporary anchoring/moorage is permitted preferably through an LOC, and how to regulate/prohibit live-aboards in a manner that saves the District harmless. This last comment is made as the District Zoning Bylaw is not entirely clear whether live-aboards are prohibited through existing provisions.

What needs to be focused on is the specific approach desirable to, and effective for, Brentwood Bay given the issues associated with temporary moorage as well as historical use of the water by residents, including First Nations. It is likely that the sensitivity of the Saanich Inlet and thus Brentwood Bay will be of concern. This can be dealt with separately from a regulatory scheme and should occur whether temporary anchoring or moorage is permitted in an LOC. Considerable information was obtained for Saanich Inlet as a whole in the late-1990’s through the Saanich Inlet Study which may still bear relevance today, if only as a starting point.

Based on the analysis of approaches used in West Kelowna, Port Moody and Victoria, I feel confident in saying that it would be difficult to improve on the approach used by Port Moody, and to some extent Victoria as it appears they are proceeding in the same direction as Port Moody, with necessary adjustments for Banfield Park, for example. The degree of success achieved by Port Moody, to be reported on in the near future, may cast the decision toward using a model based on the approach taken there. Combining it with site specific zoning for the LOC area could ‘lock’ the solution to the issue for the District.

Some of the elements that the District does not possess that are found in the Port Moody scheme is the cooperation of Port Metro Vancouver or CG to educate the boating public on moorage in Port Moody Inlet, policing boats moored outside the DAA and the removal of vessels not moored within the DAA or which are in a derelict condition. Assistance from 7 | Page

Page 24 of 119 CEDAR COAST PLANNING CONSULTANTS –MEMO November 30, 2016 external agencies is available in DCS and will likely require contractual agreements to implement as well as associated costs. Nonetheless, capital and administrative costs could be recovered, at least in part, through charges assessed on vessels anchoring or mooring temporarily within a zoned LOC dedicated to that purpose.

Prior finalizing an LOC area and implementing zoning provisions within it, the DCS would need to enter into a rigorous public consultation process including the Tsartlip First Nation. In addition, it would need clarity from CG on how to have regard for navigable waters and would require the CG’s approval for the location of a moorage/anchorage area. Discussions will be required and an application for an LOC filed with FLNRO to acquire the appropriate tenure for the water area to be used. Finally, the DCS will want to consult with legal counsel periodically throughout the application process and definitely prior to implementing regulatory provisions for the designated moorage/anchorage area.

Having reviewed the Port Moody process and the structure that has been established for managing the DAA, I would recommend that the DCS consider an approach similar to what is in effect there and move forward to establish a similar area within Brentwood Bay. It would be prudent to examine what has been implemented in the Gorge area of the City of Victoria to gain on the experience acquired by the City in the area of Banfield Park with this issue to help in refining the scheme to be used in Brentwood Bay. A designated area established through an LOC with zoning provisions in effect would provide clarity as to where vessels are permitted to anchor or moor and where they cannot. It would also assist with the prohibition of live-aboards and with the possible elimination of derelict vessels (through the zoning provisions applied).

8 | Page

Page 25 of 119

Saanich Inlet Marine Enforcement Working Group

November 30, 2016

Meeting Notes

Present

Deputy Chief Derren Lench, Central Saanich Police Service (Chair) Michael Simmons, Saanich Inlet Protection Society (Vice‐chair) Paul Bastarache, Compliance and Enforcement Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Roberta Dight, Transport Canada Petra Allen, Saanich Inlet Protection Society Ian Cameron, Saanich Inlet Protection Society Allan Adams, Central Saanich Maritime Society Harvey Merritt, Central Saanich Maritime Society Anne Henderson, Brentwood Bay Citizen Group Alicia Holman, District of Central Saanich Council Greg Atkinson, Office of MLA Gary Holman

Discussion (captured under themes)

Sunken Vessels: Update on ongoing efforts to have two sunken vessels removed from Brentwood Bay. One is just off shore and one has been tied to a mooring buoy further out. Willis Marine has been asked by DCS to provide estimates; raise the vessels and tow to shore with an option to destroy and transport to the landfill. Once costs are known the District will discuss with Transport Canada possible in‐kind or financial contributions. Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) will not cover any of these expenses. The vessels may have to remain stored at Public Works for a period of time to attempt location of the owners. Transport Canada will provide the necessary Receiver of Wrecks paperwork as necessary. These sunken vessels are not considered a navigation hazard by Transport Canada and Coast Guard has determined they are not a pollution threat.

Floats: These are floating structures not attached to the shore. Most if not all do not have lights. None currently have a permit from BC Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO). Compliance and Enforcement Branch does not issue permissions but another branch of the Ministry does. Some floats may be considered a hazard to navigation in which case action could be taken by TC. Some floats may have potential pollutants in which case the Coast Guard or BC Environment could take action. It was suggested that a joint inspection by BC FLNRO, TC, RCMP and CSPS could be arranged. FLNRO and TC suggested that if anyone provides information they will investigate.

Government of Canada Funding and Legislation: The Ocean Protection Plan (OCP) has been announced with new funding for ocean safety and promise of legislation for Vessels of Concern. At the moment allocation of the funding is not decided. TC is preparing to hire additional staff for implementation. The Navigation Protection Act is being reviewed. The regional TC office is involved in planning for all these aspects of the OCP.

District of Central Saanich (DCS): The Chief Planner for DCS is currently preparing a report to be presented to Council December 12th. The report will list the possible approaches that are available to

Page 26 of 119

the District and will refer to some of the current practices elsewhere in BC including those implemented in the Gorge, Port Moody and Kelowna. The Working Group has not been engaged with the District in preparation of the report. It is planned that if Council agrees there will be consultation before policy and programs are planned.

There is concern that vessels being removed from the Gorge are now being towed to Brentwood Bay. So far three boats have arrived in the bay from the Gorge. A long term solution has to be found. Once DCS settles on a solution for Brentwood Bay vessels of concern will just move to another community.

Transport Canada commented on some solutions to similar situations in other parts of BC.

1. Columbia‐Shuswap Regional District has zoned the surface of Shuswap Lake to prohibit placement of new mooring buoys, except by waterfront property owners. Buoys already in place will be allowed to stay. TC reported that this approach seems to have solved the issues with boats on the lake. 2. Port Moody is a special case as it is part of the Fraser and Vancouver Port. The mooring regulations recently legislated by the City does not restrict the right to navigate nor short term mooring but does restrict long term mooring. The City is able to regulate in this way only because it is part of the Port and has arranged with the Port to do so. 3. Victoria – Gorge has been possible as the City of Victoria and applied and received a license of occupation for the sea bed from the Province. 4. In Brentwood Bay the navigation channels are legally defined as “no work zones” as this is the only legal means available to TC to designate areas in a way that restricts activities. The strategy of removing mooring buoys is not productive as each one removed is soon replaced by another.

Inventory of Brentwood Bay: The RCMP and Central Saanich Police Service worked together over the summer to do a complete inventory of all boats, mooring buoys, and floats. There were 404 objects recorded with the GPS coordinates. Cpl. Larry Jacobs of the RCMP is currently making them GIS readable and will be sharing with Transport Canada. TC (Roberta) asked that anyone send her current photos of troublesome situations on the bay. She will research the situation using the inventory, assess if any regulations are breached and determine if enforcement actions would be possible. TC (she) made the commitment to coordinate the review with other departments of the Federal, Provincial and local governments and to coordinate enforcement.

FLNRO (Paul) reminded the group that in 2012 a similar joint project took place removing a number of derelict vessels, and designating the “no work” zones. At the time several departments from different levels of government worked together with the District of Central Saanich and he committed FLNRO to continue with similar efforts in the future.

It was agreed that all levels of government need to work together and solutions can be found with that commitment and focus. Several participants pointed out there are limited budgets for the District and various departments with competing pressures. There was some discussion that some funding might be available from NGO’s and that may be considered in the future.

Moratorium on Mooring Buoys: Anne did ask about a possible moratorium on mooring buoys which led to a discussion on the fact that removing them doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t be replaced.

Page 27 of 119

Vessel Licensing: Petra discussed the success of Washington State in licensing all boats which allows for clear identification. It means that ownership of abandoned boats can be known, provided that records of licenses are maintained. Also funds from licenses can be used for crucial regulation and enforcement of vessels of concern. It can also be used for education programs aimed at the boating community. This would be an ideal subject for funding under the OCP. As would assistance to local communities to achieve any of the programs we have discussed at the Working Group.

Page 28 of 119 Saanich Inlet Round Table 13 October 2016 Shoal Point Centre, North Saanich Meeting Notes

Approx. 80 people in attendance Alan Dolan, Facilitator Kitty Lloyd, Note taker

Welcome to Saanich First Nations’ Traditional Territories – Adam Olsen  Saanich Inlet is the heart of the Saanich Nations’ territory  Good to see all the seats here filled today, that there is lots of interest in the community about the health of Saanich Inlet  Saanich Inlet is important to all who live here now, and those who have for many generations  Primary way of travel was always on the water  Common saying among the Saanich peoples: “When the tide is out, the table is set”  This is the time of year when we honour the salmon returning – especially the chum, they have provided major source of protein for Saanich people for generations, just coming to the end of that moon  Most of Saanich peoples’ traditions were around honouring the ocean  All Saanich people signed the Douglas treaties, not just about land deals, this is a water treaty as much as a land treaty  We often overlook the importance of water, it’s at events like this that we celebrate and recognize the importance of the ocean  Concern expressed about number of boats moored, continued closure of shellfish beds due to pollution  Welcome to MPs Elizabeth May and Alistair MacGregor, and all the MLAs and municipal councillors here today

Welcome – Acting Mayor of North Saanich Murray Weisenberger  There is overwhelming support for the round table at the North Saanich council  Our council voted unanimously to fund this meeting today

Introductions around the table:  Saanich Inlet Protection Society, Parks Canada, Peninsula Streams Society, Central Saanich Maritime Society, Bamberton Historical Society, SeaChange Marine Conservation Society, University of Victoria, Central Saanich Police Service, RCMP, Power Squadron, Central Saanich council, Shorekeepers, Cowichan Bay Shipwatch Society, Harbour Authority Association of BC, Central Saanich Community Association, Willis Pt Community Association, Sidney Anglers, CRD, CVRD; boaters and residents of Mill Bay, Brentwood Bay, Sidney

Presentation: Vessels of Concern Nicole Legault, Jeffrey Johnson, Eric Huberdeau of Transport Canada (via phone and internet from Ottawa); see attached PDF of the presentation

 Strategy to address abandoned and wrecked vessels, formal national consultation period has passed but still want to hear input about measures used elsewhere around world to address this issue

Page 29 of 119  Growing problem in local communities, especially with pleasure craft; inventory a few years ago showed several hundred along the BC coast, probably many more by now  Definitions: o Abandoned: owner has voluntarily given up interest, has not transferred to another owner o Derelict: unseaworthy, a public nuisance o Wreck: vessel that is, or is at risk of becoming, sunken, beached or stranded  Pleasure craft: owner can no longer afford to maintain, expensive to dispose of, especially fiberglass  Insufficient insurance, can’t repair after an accident or storm, cost of dismantling boat is prohibitive, low value of materials at end of life  Federal gov’t has limited power to address impacts, can act under certain circumstances e.g. if a threat to marine environment (discharging pollutants, damaging fish or fish habitat) or obstructing marine navigation  Key elements of potential strategy for Canada: o Prevent occurrence of new problem vessels, address the lack of appropriate disposal options o Remediating existing problem vessels  Discussion questions: would new rules such as prohibition of abandonment, be an effective means of prevention?  Remediating existing vessels, national consultation – general agreement that current laws, policies and programs are insufficient; any strategy should emphasize owner responsibility – being able to identify owners is often a problem, this need to be addressed  Partnerships needed with other levels of gov’t, improve disposal options, measures are needed to fund the remediation of problem vessels  Looking to state of Washington and other jurisdictions to see how this problem is handled elsewhere

Questions and Comments:  MLA Gary Holman: key points in discussion with federal agencies is that there needs to be 2 parallel actions, with federal agencies taking the lead; the province is waiting in the wings on this, federal government has primary jurisdiction, regulatory changes need time to be implemented and enacted; deal with inventory of existing abandoned boats while dealing with regulatory amendments; there is concern about downloading of responsibility onto lower levels of government that have no constitutional responsibility; need the federal government to step up and lead on this issue  A: there is recognition by federal gov’t that they need to take a leadership role, but need to work with other levels of gov’t to deal with this issue, we don’t want to download but want to deal effectively with partners in other levels of gov’t  MP Elizabeth May: has been hearing from constituents for years, cuts to Transport Canada to the BC region, only $35,000 to deal with this issue on BC coast. Has there been a request to increase the budget? What has TC been asking for, what should I be asking for when I talk with Transport Minister Garneau soon?  A: specific funding was for vessels of concern, or marine safety?  MP May: Don’t recall seeing any augmentation of budget, down from $150,000 one year to 35,000 the next, need to increase funding for the BC region. As a former Atlantic Canadian, this is a bigger problem on the BC coast  A: There has never been specific resources to deal with derelict vessels in a TC budget, not sure what precisely you’re referring to, could be something to do with obstruction in navigable waters 2

Page 30 of 119  Q: What about enforcement – is there going to be more funding towards that?  A: looking more at the prevention perspective, not in a position to say whether more enforcement will be available in future, up to the minister to decide that  North Saanich Councillor Murray Weisenberger: Don’t forget that we’re closest to the problem, but have the least amount of resources, please don’t forget about local gov’t  RCMP: was at both conferences in Victoria [where public input on derelict boats was received by TC], RCMP deals with a lot of derelicts on this coast, we just dealt with 2 in Brentwood Bay in last month, one was sinking, Central Saanich municipal police stepped up to fund this, but should be getting more support from the federal government to fund such efforts; need money to deal with this problem, getting very frustrated  Central Saanich Councillor Alicia Holman: 2/3 of land in Central Saanich is in Agricultural Land Reserve, so tax base is small; unlikely that local gov’t will be able to support more, need federal funding; what about the model of electronic product recycling as a way to fund derelict boats?

Proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve James Gordon, Parks Canada – project manager; please see attached PDF of presentation

 There are 4 National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) plus 2 proposed ones in all of Canada; proposed ones are Lancaster Sound (arctic) and Southern Strait of Georgia  How is an NMCA different from a park? o Managed for sustainable use, without compromising ecosystem structure and function  Parks Canada recognizes importance of First Nations, working with 19 Nations in the region, relationship with each is very important, believe in principles of collaborative management and governance; recognize that it’s not always fair to lump all nations under one umbrella of First Nations  Broad objectives: protect and conserve biodiversity, responsible use, manage collaboratively, promote awareness  What activities are permitted in NMCA? Traditional harvesting, shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, recreation and tourism  Not permitted: oil and gas exploration, oil and gas development, undersea mining  What guides management decisions? Principles of ecosystem management, precautionary principle  Who decides what is ecologically sustainable? Will be developed over time, in collaboration with First Nations, traditional knowledge and academia, federal agencies such as DFO, TC, etc. NMCA will be subject to federal acts like shipping, navigation, fishery, etc.; advice of advisory committees  Capturing values: ecological, social, cultural, other values of NMCA  An enduring statement required for each NMCA, these will guide long term conservation objectives; statement is prepared by Parks Canada in consultation with those living near or using NMCA  How is NMCA established? o Identify representative marine areas, selection of candidate NMCA o Feasibility assessment – consultation, gov’t agreement o Negotiation of agreements, interim management plan o Addition to schedule of the act (done by act of parliament) o Goal is for full management plan in 5 years, aiming at 2020  Proposed boundary – 2011 boundary proposal [see map in attached presentation]  What’s next: continue with First Nations engagement, bilateral stakeholder engagement, working groups, public engagement 3

Page 31 of 119  Contacts: o Project Manager: [email protected] o First Nations Coordinator: [email protected]

Questions and Comments:  Elizabeth May: Please report to your Parks Canada head office that losing the headquarters on Saturna Is hurt the community; no increase in Parks Canada budget for 2016  Q: What about working with the US, is there a plan to work collaboratively on the Salish Sea?  A: Our task is to actively collaborate, but we have no jurisdiction outside Canada  Q: Would you have a budget to include dealing with derelict vessels within the NMCA? Could include that in your budget request.  Q: What about oil and gas development and the floating LNG proposal?  A: Shipping is permitted in an NMCA, but industrial operation of an LNG plant within the NMCA would not be appropriate in my view. We will try and address some of these issues in policy development discussions  Important to have discussions with chiefs and councils of First Nations at the beginning of this process rather than as an afterthought. Difference between traditional, past, present and future sustainability, First Nations intend to continue harvesting into the future, all use is certainly not in the past  Q: Gary Holman: how will the NMCA fit in with other initiatives such as the UNESCO global geopark, etc?  A: Not in a position to answer for other groups working on different initiatives, but want to work collaboratively with groups working on complementary initiatives  Q: Similar land based protected areas use concept of having core areas and surrounding protective buffer areas, will you consider this for the NMCAs?  A: There would be distributed areas that need to be protected in this NMCA, this would be very difficult, just a discussion at this point, would try and address this through the interim management plan

Brentwood Bay Marine Enforcement and District Role

Introduction: Michael Simmons - SIPS  Central Saanich Police Board established a marine enforcement working group  Joint patrols were established through the summer using the RCMP boat

Sergeant Greg Johnson – Central Saanich Police Service  In summer 2015 things were getting a bit out of hand in Brentwood Bay, lots of boats coming for the fireworks at Butchart Gardens, many boats anchored there in Tod Inlet  Incident in August 2015 at the end of fireworks, a boat slammed into the back of another vessel, almost killed a family; Greg was in charge of that investigation, assembled statements, charges are now before the courts, can’t comment at this point, someone has been charged with criminal negligence  After this, was decided that attention had to be paid to vessels in the bay  Now they partner with RCMP boat to attend every fireworks night, very chaotic, needed to have help from the RCMP  Mapped the channels in Brentwood Bay, have removed 2 sunken vessels now, took them to the Central Saanich works yard, where they were dismantled by municipal workers

Corporal Larry Jacobs – RCMP  Runs the marine section, works in all the lakes and marine areas around southern island 4

Page 32 of 119  Works with Oak Bay, Central Saanich, other municipalities, on the issue of derelict boats, e.g. ones in Cadboro Bay; has worked with Transport Canada, including in Tsehum Harbour, has a great working relation with Transport Canada  Transport Canada budget was cut, so when the 2 boats sank in Brentwood Bay, had no money to deal with them; got the boats on trailers, Central Saanich workers dismantled the boats, Transport Canada paid for the landfill fees; very time consuming to organizing all the different parties to coordinate this kind of effort  Will give 60 – 80 days’ notice on non-compliant mooring buoys, then can remove buoys and boats  Plan is to clean up the unsanctioned mooring buoys in Brentwood Bay and then maintain, but it’s up to Transport Canada to fund this  Marine enforcement working group is continuing, great collaboration between the two police forces and community  Please let us know if there’s an issue you want dealt with, Alicia Holman is the council liaison

Central Saanich Mayor Ryan Windsor  Working group was established to add some enforcement in the bay, also an education component about requirement for holding tanks; attempting to get the no discharge exemption for Saanich Inlet changed, although this has not happened yet, boats still need a holding tank  Effort was spearheaded by police force, there will be a report soon about different options; waste disposal of derelict boats – expensive, Hartland Landfill – need to be aware that we don’t want to fill up the landfill,  Mayor Windsor is the chair of solid waste committee for CRD, boat disposal could create a large volume of waste

MP Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands)  Getting together with Cpl Larry Jacob soon to discuss situation in Brentwood Bay  Fighting Pacific Northwest LNG, Malahat LNG, Kinder Morgan  Very indebted to SIPS for the presentation given by Patrick McLaren at the May meeting, very compelling data [McLaren’s talk was on the unique features of Flora Bank near Prince Rupert, where an LNG proposal by Petronas is proposed; scientific data was basically ignored by federal government]  The federal environmental review process has deteriorated into an industrial concierge service at the expense of science; the culture has changed; none of Patrick’s data ever reached the minister  Approval of Woodfibre LNG site, and 2 sites for Site C hydro dam, has shaken her to the core, would not have thought these decisions were possible after initial conversations with the new federal ministers

MP Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan-Malahat-Langford)  Thank you to local councils for picking up the slack left by federal government  Worked for MP Jean Crowder for 7 years, she authored first derelict vessels bill authorizing Coast Guard to become the receiver of wrecks  Jean asked Alistair to draft a summary of what we wanted to achieve, he studied the Washington model as one to emulate, the bill was defeated in 41st parliament, MP Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) has reincarnated the concept into a new private member’s bill, may be debated in spring 2017, hard to know how this will be received  Changing the law will cost some money, we would appreciate a coordinated effort by this group to support this initiative

Page 33 of 119 MLA Gary Holman  Is the police board working group having input into the federal working group? Is there a change in legislation being planned around holding tanks? There are still new buoys being laid down, there should be a moratorium, province should be stepping in to help with this, they have jurisdiction, would be helpful for them to be involved (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), they should sit on Saanich Inlet working group.  A: will be answered offline

Bamberton Quarry Re-activation and Expansion – Denis Coupland, SIPS

 In June the Malahat Investments Corporation filed a Notice of Work Referral with the Cowichan Valley Regional District indicating that they would be applying to BC Mines and Energy to expand their quarry permit to 40 hectares. This is despite the fact that Three Point Properties already spent around $10 million to remediate the site when they were hoping to build a town site there.  There are questions about the zoning for the site where they are proposing to install the gravel crushing operation.  Two fish bearing streams are identified on site, plan indicates that they would install a settlement pond at the stream mouth - how would that improve upstream spawning habitat?  There will be devastating effects on eelgrass, kelp beds and other marine ecosystems along west coast of the inlet; we’re in for a long fight on this one.  Does anyone have more information about this?  Next round table let’s address this, should have the meeting on the west side of the inlet

Comments/Questions:  Maureen Alexander, Bamberton Historical Society president: has done lots of research on this site, society ran a museum in the site for 10 years, in the former manager’s house. Bamberton Cement Plant site is considered one of the most significant historic industrial sites in BC. Last year they were evicted when property was purchased by Malahat Nation. Maureen has information from former cement plant site manager Joe Chance who reviewed the current proposal for a quarry: o Rock is fractured limestone, cannot be used for construction or road-building (too alkaline and soft) o Blasting of fractured limestone at existing quarry site had to be stopped as it was creating a steep hole near the highway o In 1980s, test drilling was done in the area, indicated poor quality and low quantity; site was considered not financially viable, later used for distribution rather than production  CVRD board member: processing is not allowed under current zoning  Another CVRD board member: asked staff to bring this mine application to public process, applicant claims his company is too small to conduct a large scale operation; he is willing to set up a meeting with the applicant if desired, and request a tour of the site

Summary of Outcomes and Actions – Alan Dolan

 Derelict boats: o Need federal funding; great example of creativity shown by Central Saanich Police Services and RCMP to deal with the 2 abandoned boats in Brentwood Bay o Collaborations shown here need to be broadened, between agencies and working groups

Page 34 of 119 o If there’s another issue in Saanich Inlet that police could deal with, let CS Councilor Alicia Holman know (CS Council liaison) o Request MP Shelagh Malcolmson to come to next meeting? She participated in federal conference call, Gary Holman was impressed with her depth of knowledge  Malahat/Bamberton Quarry o Ask CVRD board member to set up a meeting and site tour with applicant o Address this topic on next agenda

Future Round Table Topics:

 UNESCO Global GeoPark  What is the legal framework for Canadian regulations around LNG transportation etc? This will help us know more for a future round table o Fran Pugh – spoke with Calvin Sanborn from UVic Environmental Law Centre, a law student starting in January will be looking into this; let Fran know specific concerns or questions  Biological concerns: what has happened to the kelp and eelgrass? Why have prawn populations crashed? What about fish, Goldstream hatchery? Would like some of these topics to be included in future  Stormwater quality: o MLA Gary Holman: wondering about contamination running off the land. He’s not convinced that boats are the main source of contamination entering the inlet. Stormwater, streams, agriculture runoff are major sources of contamination. CRD has started an initiative around shellfish, consultation with Tsartlip Nation about shellfish harvesting, that would be a good perspective to bring in; contamination is not just from vessels, it’s also from the land. o Alicia Holman: SIPS had a presentation by CRD staff [Dale Green], about stormwater quality monitoring in Jan. 2015; latest data was submitted to Central Saanich recently. This would be a good topic for a future meeting.  CVRD sewer outfall extension proposal – currently, treated effluent is released to Cowichan River, proposal to extend the outfall into the ocean instead of into river. It would be good to have a presentation from CVRD staff about this issue  Elizabeth May: People that heard Patrick McLaren’s talk at last meeting are the most educated people in Canada about the issue of federal government ignoring environmental science that is presented, we are lucky to have him in our area; look at next issue of Island Tides for article on use of fraudulent science, this is a broader deeper problem, DFO is turning off alarm bells rather than heeding them; Canadian Environmental Assessment process is flawed; flag this problem for a future meeting  Retired DFO researcher is starting a program of citizen science for water quality along the coast; Squamish Nation started this, also being done in the Salish Sea in Washington, has evolved into a big program, getting a good view of the workings of the Salish Sea; goal is to supplement what the federal government used to do; getting boat owners involved in gathering data. [Name? Contact info?]  Single use plastic bags and laundry effluent: recent presentation at a Union of BC Municipalities meeting showed that clothing microfibers (e.g. polyester) from wash water is entering the ocean in huge quantities and causing severe problems up the marine food chains.

Sheila Irving, SIPS President: Thank you for your active involvement and continuing support

Meeting adjourned 4:30pm 7

Page 35 of 119 OctoberOcto 13, 2016 Addressing abandoned, derelict and wrecked vessels $%!&&"!&"&!! &$"&&"!"&)"'!&

$!%#"$& !!#$&!$%#(& %$%!!% ! !! "%&'$! $&$"'$%

Purpose

• Provide an overview of the issue of abandoned derelict, and wrecked vessels

• To seek your views on: • What are the causes and challenges • Key elements of a possible federal strategy

• Present what we heard during national consultations

Page 36 of 119 Background • Abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels are a growing problem for local communities as they can create environmental, economic, social and safety concerns. • It is estimated there are thousands of abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels in Canadian waters, with hundreds that may pose a hazard. • The problem will continue to grow as Canada’s vessel fleet ages. • While in Canada approximately 40,000 vessels per year reach end-of-life and the vast majority of them are disposed of properly, even a small percentage of them becoming derelict, abandoned or wrecked can cause major impacts on communities.

What do we mean by abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels? Abandoned* Owner intentionally and voluntarily gives up interest, and ownership of vessel with no intention of returning to it and without transferring ownership to another person Wreck** Maritime law Vessel or part of a Derelict considers a Wrecks vessel that is, or is at Commonly derelict vessel can be risk of becoming, referred to as a to be an abandoned sunken, beached or very poor or abandoned stranded. The result unseaworthy vessel of a maritime condition casualty, negligence or a public or a deliberate nuisance act

* Excludes abandonment by a crew for safety reasons ** Excludes military and heritage wrecks

Page 37 of 119 Why the problem occurs – what we know

* Owner can no longer afford to or chooses not to maintain vessel and lets it deteriorate (e.g., job loss, sickness, old age, death) * Owner cannot or does not want to pay to properly dispose of vessel and abandons it in the water * Owner sells vessel at end of life for low cost to unsuspecting buyer who is unaware of costs to maintain or fix the vessel Pleasure craft * Insufficient insurance or lack of means to remove/repair vessel after a storm or other maritime accident * Vessel no longer has any value and becomes a net liability for the owner at end of life (e.g. fibreglass hulls cannot be recycled or repurposed) * Vessels taken out of service are deregistered and no longer subject to oversight and deteriorates * New owner of old vessel is unaware of costs or unwilling to fix or maintain operate/scrap the vessel and abandons it or leaves it moored or docked or anchored indefinitely * Vessel is sold to foreign owner making it difficult to identify them and make them responsible for end of life management Commercial vessel * Insufficient insurance and high mitigation costs after maritime accident * High costs of recycling a vessel in Canada compared to overseas * Low remedial value of vessel at end of life due to record-low salvage price for steel

The Federal Government has limited powers to address some of the impacts of these vessels…

Threats to the marine environment: * Has discharged, is discharging, or is likely to discharge, oil or another pollutant (DFO/CCG, ECCC) * Threatening fish and/or fish habitat (DFO, ECCC) * Depositing or potentially depositing waste in Arctic waters (TC) Threats to navigation, operations or safety: * Obstructing, or potentially obstructing, marine navigation in scheduled waters (TC) * Impeding, interfering with or rendering difficult or dangerous the use of a port, designated or scheduled harbour, canal or seaway (e.g., Canada Port Authorities, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Small Craft Harbours) * Jeopardizing the safety or health of persons, the environment, navigation, property or operations in a public port, port managed by a Port Authority, harbour or seaway (e.g., Canada Port Authorities, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Small Craft Harbours) 6

Page 38 of 119 …and powers to address abandoned vessels and wrecks in certain situations

Abandoned Vessels: * May authorize any person to take possession of, and remove, any abandoned vessel located in Scheduled Waters where there is a willing 3rd party (TC) * Can create regulations to allow the sale of an abandoned vessel to any person (TC) * Prohibit the disposal of a vessel at sea unless authorized (ECCC)

Wrecks: * May authorize any person to take possession of, and remove, any wreck located in Scheduled Waters where there is a willing 3rd party (TC) * Prohibit the sinking of a vessel at sea as a means of disposal unless authorized (ECCC)

Key elements of a potential strategy for Canada

Preventing the occurrence of new problem vessels * Under existing authorities, there are no laws that prevent an owner from intentionally abandoning a vessel. The federal government has authorities to take action but powers are specific to addressing hazards in certain situations, and do little to prevent abandonment or make owners accountable (see Annex). * Lack of appropriate disposal options can also be a barrier for owners.

Remediating existing problem vessels * A legacy of abandoned, derelict and wrecked vessels in Canadian waters pose risks that need to be addressed in the short-term. There is no national inventory of vessels of concern. * Addressing existing abandoned, derelict and wrecked pleasure craft is a burden for communities that may not have the resources to take action.

Page 39 of 119 Preventing the occurrence of new problem vessels

Questions for Discussion Q1. Would new rules or laws, such as prohibiting abandonment, be an effective way to prevent the occurrence of problem vessels across Canada? Who should be responsible for enforcing any new rules?

Q2. Stakeholders consulted to date support Canada’s accession to the Nairobi International Convention for the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. Should Canada consider similar measures to hold owners liable for the hazards caused by other types of problem vessels (beyond wrecks)?

Q3. To hold owners responsible for their vessels, it is important that they can be identified. What changes could be made to existing systems to improve the easy and reliable identification of vessel owners?

Q4. How difficult or costly is it to dispose of a vessel? Are there enough options available to the average recreational or commercial vessel owner? What can be done to support better disposal options for owners? 9

Remediating existing vessels of concern

Questions for Discussion

Q6. Who should play a role in cleaning up existing small abandoned, derelict or wrecked pleasure craft? What about large or commercial vessels?

Q7. How should the clean up costs be covered? Should a remediation fund be developed?

Q8. Is using a risk-based approach the best way to prioritize vessels for remediation? Should the same approach be taken for both small and large vessels?

Q9. What types of risks should be considered and how should stakeholders be consulted in deciding which vessel to address?

Page 40 of 119 What we heard during national consultations

• General agreement that current laws, policies and programs are not sufficient to comprehensively address this issue

• Any strategy should place the emphasis on vessel owner responsibility (e.g., by improving the ability to identify vessel owners)

• Partnerships are needed with other levels of government to improve vessel disposal options

• In the longer term, measures are needed to fund the remediation of problem vessels

Thank you for your participation.

Our coordinates:

Nicole Legault Director, Environmental Policy Framework and Integration Transport Canada Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613)949-1768

Éric Huberdeau Environmental Policy Advisory, Clean Water Policy Transport Canada Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 998-9885

Page 41 of 119 Annex

How other jurisdictions are tackling the problem

U.S. Washington State Model * Prohibition, authorities for local enforcement to take action on vessels, vessel removals funded through surcharge on licensing and registration

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration * Detailed inventory of sunken wrecks completed in 2012 (20,000 wrecks) and risk assessment completed in 2013 (17 priority vessels)

Europe BOAT Digest * Increase awareness of vessel end-of-life management for owners and dismantlers, including web-based geospatial map of dismantlers

Page 42 of 119 Measures that have achieved results in other jurisdictions

• New authorities: – San Juan County, Washington State (2014) - 24% (13 out of 55) of vessels removed by owner at no cost to county – Florida At-Risk Vessel Program reports early intervention can prevent up to 60% of abandoned vessels • Dedicated funding: – State of Washington (2003-2013) charges an additional $US 3 - 5 fee to annual vessel license/registration fee and has removed 306 pleasure craft ($US 2.5M) and 103 commercial vessels ($US 7.2M) – State of California (1999-2012) uses 80% of fines and has removed 1785 vessels/hazards ($US 5.8M) • Additional measures: vessel turn in program – Estimated that disposal costs for turned-in vessels are 20%-50 % of costs of remediating a vessel – State of California (2010-2012) received 246 vessels ($US 411,000) 15

Page 43 of 119 The Proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve

June 2016 Page 44 of 119

1 Page 45 of 119

2 How is an NMCA different from a National Park?

It’s an important marine area that includes the seabed with its corresponding water column and may also take in wetlands, estuaries, islands and other coastal lands. Page 46 of 119

An NMCA is managed and used in a sustainable manner that meets the needs of present and future generations without compromising ecosystem structure and function.

3 The Importance of First Nations

• Parks Canada Recognizes a special relationship with First Nations • Principles of cooperative/collaborative

Page 47 of 119 governance models will guide us • We need to meet our obligations to our First Nations Partners during the planning process

4 Broad Objectives

• Protect and conserve biodiversity and ecosystems • Safeguard social, cultural and other values • Ensure responsible use of marine resources and Page 48 of 119 land • Manage collaboratively • Promote awareness and understanding • Foster connections and experience

5 What activities may be permitted in an NMCA? Activities are managed based on conservation objectives and use that are determined to be sustainable. Page 49 of 119

6 What cannot happen in an NMCA?

Oil and gas exploration  Oil and gas development

Page 50 of 119  Undersea mining

7 What guides management decisions for an NMCA?

Principles of Ecosystem Management

Page 51 of 119 The Precautionary Principle

8 Who decides what use is ecologically sustainable?

• Collaborative management with First Nations and Parks Canada with and an appreciation for

Page 52 of 119 Traditional Cultural Use • First Nations Traditional Knowledge and Academia • The Federal Family (DFO, TC, etc.) • The advice of Advisory Committees

9 Capturing Values

• Captures ecological, social, cultural and other values of the NMCA • An enduring statement, required for each NMCA • Will guide long-term conservation objectives for the NMCA • Gain support of DFO and TC of NMCA values and related objectives via management plan

Page 53 of 119 • Prepared by Parks Canada, in consultation with those who live near or use the NMCA

10 How is an NMCA established?

• Identification of representative marine areas • Selection of candidate NMCA • Feasibility assessment • Consultation phase • Governments agree that the NMCA is feasible Page 54 of 119 • Negotiation of agreements • Interim Management Plan • Addition to the schedule of the Act (Parliament) • Full management plan within 5 years of establishment

11 Proposed Boundary

2011 Boundary Proposal

Page 55 of 119 Additional changes may be necessary subject to consultation

12 What’s Next?

• Continued First Nations Engagement More In-depth Consultation Page 56 of 119 • Bilateral stakeholder engagement • Working Groups • Public Engagement

13 How to reach us

James Gordon, Project Manager 250-654-4013

Page 57 of 119 [email protected]

Lisa Joe, First Nations Coordinator 250-654-4005 [email protected]

14 EGEIVE

Nov I tl 20t0 Tho Corporation of the Districl of Central Saanich

759 Sea fihive JMood Bry B"C. 652n33 glmil: @ a.n4¿crns@f+lu s. ¡.1'

November 14,2016

Mayor and Council The District of Central Saanich 1903 Mt. Newton Cross road Saanichton, B.C. V8M 249

Dear Mayor'Windsor and Members of Council

Re: More Derelict Vessels Moving to Brentwood Bav

We enclose a copy of a newspaper article that was published in the Times Colonist on October 29,2016 with respect to illegally moored boats being forced to leave the Gorge 'Waterway due to new zoning regulations. Please note that the article refers to a Mike Taylor ( one of the boat owners being forced to move his boat from the Gorge) and quotes him as saying "It's going to cost $1,500.00 to tow me to Brentwood Bay and another $3,000.00 to drop a mooring pin up there"

We just wanted to inform you that less than 12 hours after this article was published, 'We Mr. Taylor's boat was seen being towed into Brentwood Bay. enclose a copy of a pictwe of the boat where it now sits in Brentwood Bay.

In addition to the aforesaid one of our members has informed us that in early September a waterfront neighbour ran into a group of people who said they were out here scouting out Brentwood Bay as they were planning on moving their boats out here from the Gorge due to the fact that they were being hassled too much in the Gorge. This "scouting" trip took place just before the deadline to remove boats from the Gorge came into effect.

Page 58 of 119 2

In our opinion Brentwood Bay already has enough of its own derelict vessels that must be dealt with. Infact,within the last two months two of the existing derelict vessels have sunk - resulting in the usual pollution problems and cleanup costs. The last thing the Bay and this municipalþ need is an influx of up to 22 additiot:t,l derelict vessels (virtually an armada) coming into the Bay causing more pollution (sewage, oil leaks and garbage disposed along the shoreline) and more potential cleanup costs when the boats eventually sink.

Many citizens of this municipality have spent a lot of time and effort in cleaning up Brentwood Bay and Saanich Inlet in an attempt to bring back the fish, the eel grass and other marine life as well make the waters clean and usable for swimmers, kayakers paddle boarders and other recreational users. It would be a shame if all this volunteer work went for naught because a few people ( about to become a lot more) choose to live on boats without holding tanks, without proper garbage disposal and without the will to try to keep things clean enough so all people can enjoy the beautiful waters of Saanich Inlet.

In order to try to put a stop to this influx of boats from the Gorge and other areas we request that Council at the very least put out a press release that derelict vessels and liveaboards are not welcome in Brentwood Bay and that Council is looking into enacting similar zoning regulations to the regulations that govern the Gorge. If people with these boats hear that they won't be welcomed with open atms ( and may even be "hassled") it might at least cause them to have second thoughts about moving their derelict vessels to Brentwood Bay and Central Saanich. This proactive move on the part of Council would be a lot cheaper than a reactive move of cleaning up the inevit¿ble pollution and sunken wrecks afterwards.

We thank you for your attention to this matter

Yours truly,

Central Saanich Maritime SocietY per: Allan D. Adams, president

Page 59 of 119 I

KATHERINE DEDYNA Times Colonist

Only two of 24 vessels anchored illegally in the Gorge Waterway had departed by Friday's deadline to leave. Voluntary compliance is still the goal, but an action plan will evolve over the next few weeks, said Victoria city clerk Chris Coates. A contractor has removed one sunken boat at a cost of more than $2,000, and the city is prepared to invest up to $120,000 in enforcement. Four floating wharves are still anchored in the Gorge in con- tavention of city zoning. New zoning onthe waterway limits anchoring to 48 hours at a time, not exceeding atotalT2 hours in a 30-day period. Staff began contacting boat owners in mid-June, asking them to move their vessels by July 18. The final warnings were given Oct.2L,and Coates said no further notifications will be posted. "If you're still illegally moored here, we'll be taking action." The city is prepared to seek a court injunction from B.C. Supreme Court if necessary, to clear the waterway. The next step will be a visit from a marine surveyor who will assess the value of the remaining vessels - information that will have a bearing on the actions Boat owners were given until Friday to remove anchored vessels from the Gorge waterway. DARREN sroNE, TtMEs coLoNtsr taken, Coates said. I The contractor will impound ing Advisory Association. area, in his case for the last eight Abandoned and derelict boats Täylor believes kayakers and tïe vessels under a process called Mike Täylor, who lives on one years. have plagued the Gorge for years. kayak businesses are behind some "receiver of wrecks" already used of the boats, suggested the best "I've got a girlfriend and peo- Problems include discharge push Page 60of119 of of the city's to oust live- by Thansport Canada. Boat owners outreach would be using some of ple who have offered me housing, sewage from holding tanks, oil aboards from the Gorge, calling would be allowed to retrieve their the money earmarked for but I'm not interested in living on leaks and garbage along the shore. them "a bunch of snots who think property, but "they'd have to pay enforcement to help boat owners stolen land," he said. "My slip is "Certainly, the Gorge waterway they own the whole freaking har- the cþ restitution to get them clear out. "It's going to cost myhome." is a very sensitive environmental bour." back," Coates said. $1,500 to tow me to Brentwood He acknowledged his large system," Coates said. As to complaints about holding As for the people living aboard Bay and another $3,000 to drop a black boat "does look a little bit The city has a licence from the tanks polluting the Gorge, Thylor some of the boats, the city will mooring pin up there," he said. out of place" near the Seìkirk tres- of province allowing it to govern said that a nearby sewage outfall continue to reach out to them, Täylor, who earns his living as tle, but objects to the term the Gorge, but as a navigable regularly has "three or four feet Coates said. Only one person has an industrial painter, counted "derelict boats." His vessel's waterway, it's the responsibility of of brown foam" and the washroom registered to seek land-based 22boats near Banfield Park late rough exterior belies "a chande- the federal government. The at the top of the selkirk jetty was quarters, said Dean Fortin, execu- FYiday. He said he's one of nine lier down there that would blow province has jurisdiction near recently closed. tive director of the Pacifica Hous- people living aboard boats in the your mind," he said. shore. kdedyna@ti mescolon ist.com I ¡

¡i¡l Ì!*.

. -- -.' 1; - :¿-.*¡._ : Page 61of119 EGEIVE John Tidmon T22SeaDrive Nov t6 2016

Brentwood Boy, BC V8M I Bl tho Corporation of the Disti.ict of Central Saanich November 15, 2016

Moyor of Centrol Soonich ond Members of Council District of Centrol Soonich 1903 Mount Newton Cross Rood Soonichton, BC V8M 249

RE: Docks not ottoched to the shore in Brentwood Boy Deor Moyor ond Members of Council,

I hove been o resident of Brentwood Boy for 67 yeors ond hove observed mony chonges during thot time, most of them positive. However, one oreo where we ore witnessing o continuing deieriorolion of our beoutiful community is the Brentwood Boy woterfront.

Needless fo soy council is well owore of the chollenges foced deoling with this situotion, with three levels of government involved in o complex jurisdictionol issue.

I believe thoT Centrol Soonich council should proceed os soon os possible with bylow chonges similor to those implemented by the city of Vicforio, (o license of occupotion). I understond lhot this is o time consuming, involved process, however time is of the essence os we ore witnessing on olorming escolotion of congestion in Brentwood Boy. On the very some doy os o story oppeored in the Times Colonist regording the situotion on Ihe Gorge woterwoy, one of the evicted boots wos towed inio Brentwood Boy, to further odd to the problem. Others will soon follow.

On November óm I toured the Boy ond counted l3 flooting docks (pleose see photo). Just three yeors ogo there were 4. ln recent correspondence with the CentrolSoonich Moritime Society, both Provinciol ond Federol Government Ministries hove tried to punt the boll bock ond forth on the issue of flooting docks not otToched lo the shore, neither wonting to deolwith the problem.

The proliferotion of these docks just odds to the overoll problem in the Boy ond their numbers will surely grow. As on interim meosure, while o license of occupotion is being considered by council, I respectfully request thot you omend the W-l zoning bylow to stote thot oll docks must be connected to the foreshore. My understonding is Thot Centrol Soonich hos outhority 1,000 feet from the foreshore. lf such o bylow is possed, the removol of the l3 existing floots would obviously be o chollenge. As mony of our residents ore very concerned obout this issue I believe thot councilwould receive consideroble physicol ond finonciol support for the removol of these docks. This should curtoil fulure exponsion of

Page 62 of 119 lhese structures thot ore odding to the congesïion ond ore o hozord to novigotion in the Boy.

This minor chonge to the W-l zone will surely not solve oll the problems ossocioted with the Boy but il would be o stort to Centrol Soonich toking bock whot hos been lost; control of the beoutiful gem thot we oll used to enjoy ond be proud of.

T n for yo UT nst n of these importont issues

ly,

hn Tidmon

Page 63 of 119 Page 64 of 119 Ru Shea

From: Jill Wake flcwake@shaw,ca] EfiVE Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:17 AM MunicipalHall To: Nol/ tô 20t6 Subject: Vessels in, and moving to, Brentwood Bay The Ccrporation the District of C_onti.al ¡sanich^of To the Mayor and Council,

I am writing in support of the letter that you have received from Allan Adams, President, Central Saanich Maritime Society.

He has expressed the concerns, and problems, in regard to the waters of Brentwood Bay very well.

Just yesterday morning, Monday, November L4th, 2OL6, a sailboat was towed into the Bay and tied up to the government wharf. There is a Central Saanich bylaw, which is clearly stated on a sign at the top of the ramp, that there is to be no moorage on this dock between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This sailboat remained tied up to the dock overnight and was there all day today - and is currently still there, aga¡n staying overnight. The boat is tied so that the bow is right next to the yellow painted area, which is supposed to be available space for transient visitors for a short periods of time, Being tied so close to the yellow painted area definitely limits the availability of space for these visiting boats. The zodiac belonging to the sailboat is tied beyond the bow of the sailboat, so that it is also blocking a portion of this same yellow painted area.

I understand that Central Saanich Council is working on solving the problem, and that a report will be coming forward from staff at the end of November, beginning of December. I do agree with Mr. Adams that it might be a timely move to issue some form of notice that Central Saanich is working on putting a plan in place to remove the Bay of these problem vessels,

My main concern is, and always has been, the sewage that is being dumped into these waters

These boats do house a large number of live-a-board individuals. The majority of these boats do not have holding tanks - something that became a requirement in May of 20L2. Without holding tanks, these boats are unable to make use of any pump-out station, or pump-out service. These boats do not move from their mooring buoys. The resulting sewage , and grayfblack water, that is going directly into the waters of the Bay is a foregone conclusion, and does need to be stopped.

Please continue to move forward on this issue as quickly as is possible. I would hope that next summer we can once again see the residents of Central Saanich, and any of our visitors, being able to safely enjoy the waters of Brentwood Bay.

Thank you, JillWake 7046 Brentwood Drive

Page 65 of 119 From: Gary Rogers [[email protected]] on behalf of Gary Rogers [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:14 PM To: Mayor Ryan Windsor; Alicia Holman; Christopher Graham; Carl Jensen; Niall Paltiel; Bob Thompson; Zeb King Subject: Brentwood Bay boats, floats, wharves, derelict boats, liveaboards and pollution

November 16, 2016

Mayor and Council Central Saanich Municipality

Greetings;

We are writing once again to urge that you, the Council, to move forward on this Brentwood Bay issue as soon as possible. Delay will allow more liveaboards, moorage buoys, derelict boats, wharves and pollution to get established.

Others have written and detailed the problems so we won’t repeat them.

You are aware of our concerns and we are aware of the inter-jurisdictional issues you face. Regardless, we are asking that you increase the priority to resolve this.

Respectfully submitted,

Jessie and Gary Rogers 800 Delamere Road.

Page 66 of 119 EG,EilVE From: Tony Peard NOV I 7 20ffi Subject: Brentwood Bay Tho Date: November 16,2016 at 4:56:58 PM PST C¡:rrration of the Dist;"ict cr ienlrai To : Harvey Saanich

Dear Harvey, Could,u*ou send this letter out to all and the Council like John T's Thanks from Arizona

November 76, 2016

Dear N{ayor.Windsor and Council,

The Feards,my gtandfather who started the anchorage marina, my father who continued it and had more than 40 rentals until the 1950s and myself have lived on the shores of Brentwood Bay. I have lived here for most of my 73 years. Since the 1950s, it has slowly lost many of, if not all, its features. For example, Jim Gilbert, Jim Creed and Doc Smith were all known arorurd the world as fishing guides. Bing Crosby i, Bob Hope, and John Wayne even moored his yacht for a few days in the Bay, to be taken frshing by a guide . Whales, sharks (basking) and schools of herring frequently were seen right in the Bay. I have attended many Council Meetings for the last several years and the subject of how the Bay has deteriorated dropped slowly from discussion. We have now reached a point that the problem is out of control as all levels of government are not working together to solve it. I have seen some Council (including the Mayor) and Police trying to get the levels of govemments and individual governmental departments working together. I would like to see the marina owners included in the discussions. Many o\ryners may have power to control their own liveaboards and keep pump-out stations in order. Butchart Gardens needs to be mentioned with their interest in the Bay - the extra large donation to old Pumpty and the ne-uv sanitary service. Thank you. Many of the waterfront owners are long time residents, myself since 1986, and we have seen other areas of Brentwood get action - speed limits, no parking signs, speed bumps, etc. We in'ith others did see a very much needed sew age system installed. Before that, the waterfront owners did have their septic tanks inspected regularly because of the fear of seepage into the bay. They -,vere sometimes told to replace before the new system was completed. People living by the water can be "luclg¡" if conditions are there. We can attain a foreshore (cost for, assessed, taxed, insured ,etc). There are over 10 wharves anchored out in the bay - are they paying foreshore costs, taxes, insurance ? The coliform count is over 400 - is this safe for swimming? CRD takes a count X every few years (high on the shore drainage points) how about offshore points. Beachcoming one can find garbage - have I¡/e a no litter bylaw? There are 3 channels and GPSs show that they are clear atthe time the measurements were taken. I have studied and measured in a boats with swings of 100' with tides and light winds. The channels have to be blocked. We have had boats break loose during storms, bouncing on rocks, tied up to our wharf (no prior permission), then after the storm finishes, towed back because

Page 67 of 119 they have no power. Who pays if my wharf is damaged? Boat has no insurance (cars on the road have to have insurance) Is anyone else responsible, with no law stated? The PROBLEM has one advantzge for waterfronters that is with the adjustments made by BC Assessments. View, swimming, damage (overall), sunken boats, colíform, sewage etc. These are ai1 negative not positive adjustments. Tr,vo things are appearing that will and must cause a change - most waterfronters ¿re extremely concerned and an increasing number of our Central Saanich Council are concerned. The other two levels of Canadian govemment must. One election is coming- We would have no complaint if control was taken in both areas (moorage and pollution)

Tony and Marg Peard 806 Delamere Rd. Brentwood Bay BC 4=-'ard@,gmail.com

Page 68 of 119 Ruby Shea

From: m unicipalhall@csaanich. ca Sent: Thursday, November 17,20161:05 PM To: Municipal Hall EGEilVE Subject: Municipal Hall (response #67) Nov 2 | 2016 (resporuse The Corporation of the District Municipal Hall #67) of Central Saanich Survey Information

Site Central Saanich

Page Title Munícipal Hall

URL:

Submissíon 1111712016't:04:29 PM Time/Date:

Survey Response

Subject Boats, wharves and mooring bouYs

First Name Jack

Last Name Trueman

Home Address 795 Sea Dr., Brentwood Bay, B.C. VBM 181

E-mail Address iacktrueman(@live.ca

Day Phone Number

I am writing in support of the many letters you have received concerning illegally moored boats and wharves in Brentwood Bay. There is no need for me to enumerate the problems as you are well Message aware of them all. I have been an avid yachtsman for over 50 years and find it appalling that our waters do not deserve at least as much protection as our land.

"The information contaÍned in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential ínformation of the District of Central Saanich. It Ís intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Díssemination, dístribution or duplication of

Page 69 of 119 Page 70 of 119 I)

DerelictJ—I—'Ij Vessels

If?ijIany q?I§-F?jvessel moored in the 1000 foot municipal jurisdiction was required to have 3"’party liability and -it-.—-I.—j-1-II‘-Twreck insurance, any disposal costs would be covered, —-should '-that vesselT-j.I—‘become abandoned, derelict

orj_.- cause an accident. ItJ._-__|.|..-I.I--|r|_|_|_|.|.:.-_l.|.l.ris common practice for clubs and marinas to require such insurance for users of theirI.-.|.-_._I—'j-‘-ja.|.—-Ifacilities, and municipal moorings should be the same. Insurancejunaqutxnwould require that a vessel be licencedFEH?ffE$Hor registered (which many of the boats currently moored in the J|.r.l-—bay are not) and would require aI-Jjj-.-.1survey of the vessel's condition. The-I-.I--‘Hderelict and inoperable|.|.'-'-':|'|-.1-.r'r.lboats would not pass the survey, would|.|.-I not-II--.rrbe insurable and‘-.-would I--Lxrujhave to leave the jurisdiction!

-1j.h.&_..."__Jj|.l._._||..Please consider these issues and these solutions carefully. Brentwood Bay is_|.|.|.|_-_l.valuable to the municipality and.a___|_|.must be protected -.,—_I..l_g..and preserved for all to enjoy. -

We_-J would liketo invite all members—I-i—fII'fuI—Iof Central Saanich council to join us on our -——?stable, partially covered work1.1-|.l-I-.l—.-|.|-.I-I-I-J-.-.-I-Iboat for a tour and close up inspection of the boats, moorings-.r|.l--.-|I-I'-.-and moored docks in Brentwood|.r| Bay.-J-I.-I-'-I—JI.You will appreciate our .-.IconcernsI'l'IJI'fH"IuH'I-I'h"I-h'l'l'Imuch more if you view the dock and derelicts up close. Please phone?n.-—-H-Iilr?jzrn-jn1.j-barkus at 250-652-1496 or email [email protected] to arrange a tour starting from the municipal dock.

Thanking you for your prompt attention to this important matter

‘I.Kaspar & Trisha-—i-Schibli 1&I.?1-id‘-IDaphne Island (in the middle of Brentwood Bay)

Page 71 of 119 :,.--r /- - \ I ;"-¡ j. .ì .,. i .-. i:"" J: '_i -.ì i i,___l\ -- ¡.'-'i. ,"i i-" !.J\,'!-,ri-',....1 November 16,2016 2 I ¿0i0 734 SEA DRTVE i{tv Brentwood bay. 1-hc Corpc;i:ii¡o¡ ¡r iií3 ir,¡r; -r T.D.COWARD í)í a-'i?iìi; í':i l:l,'.:i, r',li:

CENTRAL SAANICH

CITY COI.INCIL

It is quite a conundrum that I require a LICENSE to have a float attached to the shore.

I also must pay a TAX of $149.00 a year for such a privilege

Yet TEN plus individuals have no such license and pay NO TAX when they have a float in the middle of Brentwood Bay

Province of BC insists upland o\ryners of a float have a license or permission.

What arn I missing here?

Sincerely t.d. coward

Page 72 of 119 Gary Holman,M.L.A. SaanichNorthand the Islands Room 201 — ParliamentBuildings Victoria,B.C. V8V 1X4 P: 250-387-3655 an F: 250-387-4680 T I CommunityOffice C?:)rp<2 n of 2393 BeaconAve of C39 Sidney,B.C. V8L 1W9 P: 250-655-5711or 1-855-955-5711 F: 250-655-7398

November11, 2017

HonorableSteveThomson Minister of Forests,Landsand NaturalResourceOperations P.O. Box 9049 Stn Prov Gov’t Victoria,B.C. V8W9E2

Dear Hon.SteveThomson,

MarineSociety,and your of?ce regarding growing concernsaboutthe proliferation docksin BrentwoodBay. of buoys and ?oatin g

anchoring of buoys and ?oats anchoredin the SaauichInlet,you appear to completely foryour Ministryin regulating dismissany role such installations.Withoutany policy or Province,agencies regulatorydirectionfromthe such as TransportCanadaand the RCMP,who are now beginningto rulesand regulations under the enforceexisting ausp Group, addressingtheproblem. will be hamperedin

I appreciate the recent involvementof your staff in the SaanichInlet understand WorkingGroupat my request, and I thatyour Ministryis participatingin the development of a federal-provinci al strategy on derelictvessels under theleadershipof Transport Canada.However, the Provinceand your Ministry, must be more pro-active in thesermatters, including the development0 f policies and regulations integratedfederal-provincialframework. withinan

Phone: 250-655-5711 | Fax: 25U-655-7398 | Gary.Holman [email protected] IwwwGaryHo|man.ca

Page 73 of 119 I look forwardto your response and action on theseissues. I knowyou understandthat Provincial involvementis also importantto ensurethat an appropriate regulatoryframeworkcan wide, not just be applied coast- i11a few locationswherelocalgovernments and NGOs,out offmstralionwith the lackof leadershipby seuiorgovemmenls, havestepped intotheregulatoryand management vacuum. As always,please let me knowif I can support or assist your effortsin any way. Sincerely /@W% Gary Holman,MLA SaanichNorthand the Islands pc: AllanAdams,CSMS MichaelSimmons,SIPS Ryan Windsor,CentralSaanich DuncanWilliams,FLNRO SharonHadway,FLNRO

KC: bcgeu.

Phone: 250-655-5711 [ Fax: 250 -65543 98 Gary.Holman 1 MLA@leg be.ca Iwww.GaryHolman.ca

Page 74 of 119 HGEü\.;;'i Tim Hackett Nov 2 4 766 Sea Drive î;: The Corporation Brentwood Bay BG of t,,,., _ of V8M 181 Çg¡1¡¿¡ 9,,,, ,

November 22,2016

Mayor of Central Saanich and Members of Council District of Central Saanich 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road Saanichton, BC V8M 249

RE: Brentwood Bay

Dear Mayor and Members of Council,

As a law-abiding citizen and homeowner in Central Saanich, I am dismayed by the owners of boats and floats anchored in Brentwood Bay, who have thumbed their noses at the rest of our community. It is a disgrace; I wonder how many of these people even reside in the District of Central Saanich.

As you are aware, the problem continues to get worse every year as people realize that Brentwood Bay is a free-for-all, as anything seems to go unregulated and unchecked. We are poor stewards of our once beautiful bay, and something we were once be proud of, is now nothing more than an unorganized parking lot for derelict boats and junk piled on floats. A recent listing of a home for sale on Brentwood Drive became a difficult property to sell, as potential purchasers were concerned about the eyesore, greeting them out front in the bay. What sort of impression are we leaving on the thousands of visitors to Butchart Gardens and Brentwood Bay each year?

I understand that this is a complicated issue to resolve, with all three levels of government involved, but the situation can no longer be tolerated. lf we do not take the initiative and spearhead a resolve, who will? A first step should be to enforce the bylaw, which states only floats attached to land are allowed. lf enforcement is an issue, please be assured that there are a number of boat owners, on the bay who would gladly donate their boats for such use. I for one, and there are others who would help fund the removal of the offending floats. This action would signal that we have had enough and things are about to change. A further step would be for the District to proceed immediately with new by-laws, similar to those implemented by

Page 75 of 119 the city of Victoria, to create and enforce a License of Occupation

We need to stop this disturbing escalation of congestion, pollution and harm to our once beautiful bay. I ask Gouncil to act on this matter.

Thank you.

Tim Hackett

Page 76 of 119 Page 77 of 119 Page 78 of 119 Page 79 of 119 Page 80 of 119 H Page 81 of 119 Page 82 of 119 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

For the Committee of the Whole meeting on December 12, 2016

To: Patrick Robins File: 5280-20-2016 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Norm Doerksen Priority: Strategic Superintendent of Public Operational Works

Date: November 30, 2016

Re: Removal of Two Derelict/Abandoned Vessels

RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council authorize staff to undertake the necessary work to remove two derelict/abandoned vessels in Brentwood Bay to the maximum cost of $18,000.

BACKGROUND: Staff provided council a report at the Regular Council Meeting held on June 6, 2016, meeting regarding the regulation of moorage and other uses within Brentwood Bay, and gave priority to an initiative to investigate a new municipal regulatory scheme for monitoring and enforcement of such marine activities. In addition, a staff memorandum surrounding the Brentwood Bay derelict and abandoned vessel issues will be presented at the Committee of the Whole December 12, 2016.

Two derelict/abandoned vessels in Brentwood Bay have been identified and staff have been investigating options within the current regulatory structure and operational budget to find a short-term solution to have them removed. The federal authority on the removal of the vessels, Transport Canada, has indicated they would provide the necessary Receiver of Wrecks documentation so the vessels can be legally removed from the waters of Brentwood Bay by Central Saanich.

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 83 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer November 30, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Removal of Two Derelict/Abandoned Vessels

DISCUSSION: At a recent Saanich Inlet Working Group meeting which Central Saanich Police Services, Deputy Chief facilitated a discussion surrounding two derelict vessels currently in Brentwood Bay. Ongoing discussions with stakeholders regarding options to have two derelict vessels removed from Brentwood Bay are ongoing. The District is in discussions with Transport Canada for financial support or in-kind contributions for the removal of these vessels; contributions would offset the $18,000 staff estimate the costs would be to remove the vessels. Transport Canada has been previously involved in the coordination, disposal and destruction of other vessels.

The two identified vessels, according to Transport Canada, are not affecting navigation nor are in a navigation lane. Coast Guard officials reviewed the site and have determined there is no pollution concerns at this time.

Long-term considerations to address this type of problem and other issues associated with Brentwood Bay are subject to another staff report. In the short-term, staff are recommending council approve the removal of the derelict/abandon vessels.

Preliminary estimates to provide this specialized service to raise the one vessel and tow to shore; one to tow and dismantle is approximately ($4,000-$9,000 per vessel).

Staff identified an area within the current 2016 Engineering Docks combined budget that this work could be reallocated to accommodate within the overall approved budget. Undertaking the costs of for the removal, this potentially may signal an ongoing expectation from senior levels or government and the public for the District to continue undertaking such works as a routine operational function.

Alternatively, council may wish to call upon the senior level of governments to undertake the removal or defer the municipality undertaking the removal until such time as discussions about financial contributions with federal government agencies is completed.

CONCLUSION: A source for funding the removal of the two identified vessels has been identified within the current 2016 budget and staff are capable of coordinating that work.

Additionally, the Director of Planning & Building Services is currently bringing forward long-term options for the Brentwood Bay activities on monitoring and enforcement of moorage, live- aboard, dumping and/or other activities.

Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer

Page 84 of 119 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

For the Committee of the Whole meeting on December 12, 2016

To: Mayor and Council File: 4020-01

From: Patrick Robins Priority: Strategic Chief Administrative Officer Operational

Date: December 05, 2016

Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 be read a second and third time. 2. That Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016 be given three readings.

BACKGROUND: At the October 17, 2016 meeting of council the following resolutions were passed:

 That Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 be introduced and read a first time with the map, shown as Schedule "F", to be amended to apply to the eastern accessible portion of the highlighted portion of the right-of-way on Hovey Road only.  That Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 as amended, be referred to Tsartlip First Nation for comment back to Council within four weeks.  That the unamended map attached to Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 as Schedule "F" be included with the referral of the amended Bylaw to the Tsartlip First Nation.  That Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016, together with the unamended and amended map in Schedule "F", be referred to the Central Saanich Police Services for comment.

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 85 of 119 To: Mayor and Council, December 05, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

Further, at the November 21, 2016 meeting of council staff were requested to answer, as possible, the questions provided by the Hovey Road Community Association.

That the correspondence from the Hovey Tomlinson Community Association be referred to staff to incorporate the questions with their previous list of questions for discussion at the meeting when Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 is considered.

DISCUSSION: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw

The proposed amendment bylaw would authorize the District to be able to enter into Extraordinary Traffic agreements and adds definitions for Extraordinary Traffic Agreements and for Commercial Truck and Industrial Truck by gross vehicle weight. An Extraordinary Traffic Agreement is the only way to alter the restrictions set out in the bylaw. Section 42 of the draft bylaw closes that portion of Hovey Road that is unimproved (see Schedule "F" in Bylaw 1901) to both Commercial or Industrial truck traffic except where the owner of the truck has entered into an agreement with the District under section 43 to allow a truck of a stipulated class, size and weight to travel on that portion of Hovey Road that would otherwise be prohibited under the bylaw.

Extraordinary Traffic Agreement Under Sections 36 and 42 of the Community Charter, a municipality may regulate and prohibit extraordinary traffic on certain roads, and enter into agreements between the users and the District that grant an exception to the prohibition in exchange for payment to offset the cost borne by the District as a result of the extraordinary traffic impacts. The draft bylaw would provide the authority for the District to enter into agreements that would permit extraordinary traffic.

Municipal Ticket Information System Amendment Bylaw In order to issue tickets pursuant to this bylaw, the bylaw and offence must be designated as enforceable in a Municipal Ticket Information bylaw. The current Municipal Ticket Information bylaw does not provide this authority, and therefore the attached Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw has been drafted to designate non-compliance with the agreement as an offence, and provide authorization for the District to enforce the Highway and Traffic Regulation Bylaw by issuing tickets for:  non-compliance with an agreement  extraordinary use of the highway without an agreement, and  contravention of regulations, limitations, prohibitions

The maximum penalty for a ticket is $1,000.00 and a separate ticket may be issued each day an offence occurs. In addition to the above, where a person fails to abide by terms of an agreement, Council has the options of issuing a demand letter, seeking a court injunction or carrying out an Offence Act prosecution. A person who is convicted of an offence under the Offence Act is liable to a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both.

Page 86 of 119 To: Mayor and Council, December 05, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

Hovey Tomlinson Community Association Questions

1. Please clarify what you are trying to accomplish by bylaw 1901, 2016 and 1902, 2016 change? The purpose of bylaw 1901 is to amend Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw No. 1535, 2006 for the purposes of including extraordinary traffic agreement considerations over a portion of Hovey Road as identified in the map in Schedule 'F of the bylaw'. Should an application be made under this new section of the Traffic and Highways bylaw, council may consider authorizing extraordinary traffic along that portion of Hovey Road identified in the schedule's map that was otherwise prohibited.

2. What impact will this have on residents of Hovey Road and Tomlinson Roads?

The fundamental principle is that if extraordinary traffic is permitted by agreement over a portion of Hovey Road that would otherwise not be permitted, the applicant must compensate for such traffic. The compensation is to mitigate any impacts that the roadway may encounter as a result of extraordinary traffic.

3. We notice the fines that the bylaw officer can issue are at a minimum of $200. I would expect this would just just a cost of doing business. The maximum is $1000 fine under the Municipal Information System Bylaw No. 1901, 2016. Clarification needed.

The maximum penalty for one ticket is $1,000 and a separate ticket may be issued each day an offence continues. The fines in the draft bylaw may be adjusted at council's direction.

4. When the ROW transfers to the band the bylaw then becomes moot, what happens then?

While no decision has been made to date on the disposition of portions of Hovey Road, should a portion of the road be transferred to the Tsartlip First Nation, bylaw 1901 would have no effect or authority on First Nation lands.

5. Define the limit of weight and size of the vehicles you are proposing to include in the Extraordinary Traffic Agreement.

Commercial and Industrial trucks are defined under bylaw No. 1901. A portion of Hovey Road would be closed to such defined traffic under the proposed bylaw. It would be assumed that should an application for extraordinary be made, a proponent would propose the type and size of the vehicle they wish to operate on the portion of the road that is otherwise prohibited.

6. Clarify that any potential Extraordinary Traffic Agreements will apply to all business owners, i.e. there are no exceptions for First Nations in the event a Tsartlip member opens their own commercial trucking business on the Reserve.

The proposed bylaw amendment does not discern who can or can't be a party to an Extraordinary Traffic Agreement. Conceivably a business, individual or other entity could make application for extraordinary traffic on that portion of Hovey Road that it would otherwise be prohibitied on.

Page 87 of 119 To: Mayor and Council, December 05, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

7. Explain how all this would be enforced. i.e. signage (No Truck Route except Local Delivery), policing, etc.

Should Bylaws 1901 and 1902 be adopted by Council, enforcement options include:  Ticketing by police and/or bylaw enforcement  Demand letter for compliance  Appling to Court for an injunction  Prosecution under the Offence Act There would be no signage erected on Hovey Road or Tomlinson Road because these roads are not designated truck routes.

8. Why is the District trying to maintain control over the transferred ROW and not on Tomlinson and Hovey through signage, regulations etc.

For clarity, the ROW in question is currently owned by the municipality. The municipality, if the bylaw is adopted, would be restricting access to a part of the unimproved portion of Hovey Road, not the entire road Right of Way. If the municipality were to place restrictions on all of Tomlinson and Hovey Roads, no commercial truck or industrial truck as defined under the bylaw amendment would be authorized to use those roads and in turn, access properties along those roads.

9.As per the Community Charter, why does the District not provide an access to the Cooper/Tsartlip Band off of Gowdy which is the most direct route? Where it impacts so few as opposed to over 40 homes and a school by using Hovey as the access?

The Traffic and Highway bylaw permits truck traffic off a designated route so long as truck traffic that travels outside of the truck route uses the shortest route to the destination and then returns to the designated truck route. Gowdy Road provides access to destinations to only those parcels along the east and west sides of Gowdy Road but it does not provide direct access to destinations on other Tsartlip First Nation parcels, including that of Mr. Cooper's.

There is insufficient right of way necessary to construct necessary infrastructure works (e.g. drainage) that would be required to support commercial and industrial trucks along Gowdy Road.

10. At the beginning of the bylaw amendment, it states that by transferring ownership of the unimproved ROW to Tsartlip, that would provide them with another access (West Saanich). If that should happen, will the west end of Hovey then be closed to traffic to avoid a thru-traffic situation for all vehicles short-cutting from West Saanich to Wallace? Or would the access be provided "for local residential access only" and if so, how would that be enforced?

For clarity, the bylaw amendment does not contemplate transferring the unimproved portion of Hovey Road to the Tsartlip First Nation.

Council has however engaged in discussions with the Tsartlip First Nation in transferring ownership of the unimproved portion of Hovey Road but such a transfer has not been made. If the Right of Way of the unimproved portion of Hovey Road was to be transferred to Tsartlip First

Page 88 of 119 To: Mayor and Council, December 05, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

Nation, any potential closure of the west end of Hovey Road or access to Hovey Road being for local residents only may be considered by Council at that time.

11. Why are you not able or willing to place a vehicle weight restriction of 5,500 Kilograms as per the sign on the street across from the hall?"

To erect such a sign would indicate that the municipality was restricting truck traffic on the entirety of Hovey Road, which is not the intention of Bylaw No. 1901 (see response to question 1 above).

Police Service Comments

Central Saanich Police Services have advised that they have no concerns and are supportive of the proposed bylaws.

CONCLUSION: Schedule "F" to Bylaw No. 1901 has been amended to apply to the eastern accessible portion of the highlighted portion of the right-of-way on Hovey Road only. Tsartlip First Nation have not provided the District with comments regarding the bylaw at the time of writing this report, and comments from Central Saanich Police Services are noted above. Responses to questions from the Hovey Road Community Association are also included in this report.

Staff have recommended that Council proceed with second and third readings of Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 and with three readings of Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016.

Respectfully submitted, Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS:  Hovey Road Report - October 17, I concur with the recommendation 2016 contained in this report  Traffic Highways Regulation Liz Cornwell Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer  Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016

Page 89 of 119 The Corporation of the District of Central

Saanich

REGULAR COUNCIL REPORT

For the Regular Council meeting on October 17, 2016

To: Patrick Robins File: 4020-01 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Liz Cornwell Priority: Strategic Corporate Officer Operational

Date: October 07, 2016

Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 be introduced and read a first time. 2. That Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 be read a second and third time. 3. That Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016 be introduced and read a first time. 4. That Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016 be read a second and third time.

BACKGROUND: Hovey and Tomlinson Roads serve as the road links to resident, farm and currently the eastern edge of Tsartlip First Nations properties and Reserve lands. Hovey Road was created by the provincial government in 1883, and ownership of the road was transferred to the municipality when the Community Charter was introduced.

Council has determined that Hovey and Tomlinson Roads are susceptible to premature wear and tear from heavy truck traffic and passed several resolutions restricting semi-trailer traffic along Hovey and Tomlinson Roads. These resolutions and subsequent Chief Constable’s Traffic Orders were considered to be temporary actions in order to alleviate the impact on the road from certain classifications of truck traffic while longer term solutions were considered. The

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 90 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer October 07, 2016 For: October 17, 2016 Regular Council Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws current Traffic Order expires November 30, 2016 and permits semi-trailer traffic through Tomlinson and Hovey Roads during the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. so long as the semi-trailer is accompanied by a certified pilot vehicle.

At the September 6, 2016 regular meeting, Council passed a resolution directing staff to prepare and present a new Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw which provides the municipality with authority to regulate and prohibit extraordinary traffic through Extraordinary Traffic Agreements. The bylaw would permit extraordinary traffic agreements over the unimproved portion of Hovey Road.

Council has also recently received positive responses from the Provincial and Federal Governments to Central Saanich's interest in divesting the unimproved portions of Hovey Road to the Tsartlip First Nation. Such divestiture could provide potential additional western access for currently land-locked properties on Tsartlip First Nation reserve lands. This will continue to be pursued with Tsartlip First Nation and the Federal and Provincial Governments.

DISCUSSION: Under the Local Government Act the municipality has a statutory responsibility to provide access to properties along Hovey Road including those properties that border the unimproved portion within Tsartlip First Nation lands. The municipality is limited in relation to an outright closure of a road or parts thereof, and any restrictions to an entire road would also apply to the general public and all property owners adjacent to the restricted road.

Under Sections 36 and 42 of the Community Charter, a municipality may regulate and prohibit extraordinary traffic on certain roads, and enter into agreements between the users and the District that grant an exception to the prohibition in exchange for payment to offset the cost borne by the District as a result of the extraordinary traffic. The key provisions of an agreement are the term; limits on activity such as number of trucks per day and/or days and times trucks may travel on the portion of road and the payment of compensation for loads carried.

If the user does not comply with such an agreement, the penalties under the Traffic and Highways Regulation bylaw apply and the person may be ticketed.

There are two bylaw amendments needed to enable the Municipality to regulate traffic through the use of these agreements.

1. The Districts current Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw must be amended to:  Explicitly authorize the District to enter into Extraordinary Traffic Agreements and to add definitions for Extraordinary Traffic Agreements, Commercial and Industrial Trucks by gross vehicle weight, and  Identify the area to be restricted and made subject to extraordinary traffic agreement. In this case section 42 of the draft bylaw closes that portion of Hovey Road that is unimproved (see Schedule "F" in proposed Bylaw 1901) to both Commercial or Industrial Traffic except where the owner of the truck has entered into an agreement with the District under section 43 of the draft bylaw to allow a truck of a stipulated class, size and weight to travel on that portion of Hovey Road.

Page 91 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer October 07, 2016 For: October 17, 2016 Regular Council Re: Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaws

The attached bylaw amendment “Traffic Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No.1901, 2016” will provide this authority and restrict the area in question once adopted by Council.

2. The Districts Municipal Ticket Information (MTI)System Bylaw must also be amended. In the absence of an extraordinary traffic agreement, a person who does not comply with the bylaw would be subject to a Municipal Ticket Information, a prosecution under the Offence Act (maximum fine $10,000) or an injunction under Section 274 of the Community Charter.

In order to issue tickets, the bylaw and offence must be designated as enforceable in a Municipal Ticket Information bylaw. The current Municipal Ticket Information bylaw does not provide this authority, and an amendment is required to designate non-compliance with the agreement as an offence, and provide authorization for the District to enforce the Highway and Traffic Regulation Bylaw by issuing tickets for non-compliance with an agreement, extraordinary use of the highway without an agreement, and contravention of regulations, limitations or prohibitions.

The maximum penalty for a ticket is $1,000.00 and a separate ticket may be issued each day an offence occurs and where a person fails to abide by terms of an agreement, Council has the options of issuing a demand letter, seeking a court injunction or carrying out an Offence Act prosecution.

Both bylaws may be given 3 readings prior to being adopted at the next regular meeting of Council. The bylaws do not require approval from external agencies.

CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to the Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw will provide the municipality with the authority to regulate and prohibit extraordinary traffic through Extraordinary Traffic Agreements. The bylaw will also restrict commercial and industrial traffic activity over the unimproved portion of Hovey Road extending to West Saanich Road through the use of extraordinary traffic agreements.

The bylaw amendments also provide additional enforcement tools should those become necessary. In the absence of an agreement, a person who does not comply with the bylaw would be subject to the Municipal Ticket Information, a prosecution under the Offence Act (maximum fine $10,000) or an injunction under Section 274 of the Community Charter. This will allow for the issuance of tickets for non-compliance with Extraordinary Traffic Agreements relating to the unimproved portion of Hovey Road.

Administrator’s Recommendation: ATTACHMENTS: Appendix"A": Central Saanich Traffic and Highways I concur with the recommendation Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016 contained in this report. Appendix "B": Municipal Ticket Information System Patrick Robins Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016. Chief Administrative Officer

Page 92 of 119 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1901, 2016

A Bylaw to amend Centrat Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw No' 1535,2006

The Council of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

Regulation 1 This bylaw may be cited as "Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Amendment Bylaw No. 1901 ,2016".

2 Centrat Saanich Traffic and Highways Regutation Bylaw No. 1535, 2006 is amended as follows:

a) By inserting new definitions alphabetically in section 2 as follows:

"Commercial Truck" means a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight in excess of 5500 kg, an overall height in excess of 2.4 metres or an overall length exceeding 7 metres, designed or used primarily for the transportation of goods, including a vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles, but excluding recreational vehicles, buses, farm vehicles, vehicles being useã in emergency work by the municipality, the provincial government or any of its ageñcies, or the muñicipal fire department, vehicles of the Canada Post Office, and vehicles engaged in routine maintenance work by the municipality;

"Extraordinary Traffic" means the carriage of goods or persons in vehicles over a highway in the District that is not a provincial arterial highway that, in conjunction with the nature or existing condition of the highway, Council considers is so extraordinary in the quality or quantity of the goods or the numbãr of persons carried, the mode or time of use of the highway, or the speed at ívf'¡cn the vehicles are driven or operated, that it substantially alters or increases the burden imposed on the highway through its proper use by ordinary traffic, and causes damage to the highway or resulting expense to the District beyond what is reasonable or ordinary;

"lndustrial Truck" means a Commercial Truck that with or without a trailer has three or more axles;

b) By inserting a new Part 10 and accompanying sections 41 through 44 as follows:

PART 1O - EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC

41 Where in the opinion of Council, any highway is liable to damage through Extraordinary Traffic thereon, Council may regulate, limit or prohibit the use of the highway by any person operating or in charge of the Extraordinary Traffic, or owning the goods carried thereby or the vehicles used therein.

42 Without limitation, that portion of Hovey Road shown outlined in Schedule "F" iS closed to any class of Commercial Truck or lndustrial Truck traffic except where the owner of the truck has entered into an agreement with

{00379693; 2 }

Page 93 of 119 the District under section 43 to allow a truck of a stipulated class, size and weight to travel on that portion of Hovey Road.

43. Any persons to whom sections 41 and 42 might otherwise apply may, with the approval of Council, enter into an agreement in the form prescribed in Schedule "Eu for the payment to the District of compensation in respect of the damage or expense which may, in the opinion of Council be caused by the Extraordinary Traffic, and thereupon that person shall not in respect of that traffic be subject to any prohibition or penalty prescribed by this bylaw.

44 lf a person breaches an agreement under section 43, the District Engineer shall provide the person with written notice of the breach and the person shall have 10 days to cure the breach'

45. Subject to providing written notice under section 44,lhe District Engineer may cancel, suspend, or modify the terms of the agreement under section 43, where in the Engineer's opinion there is non-compliance with the agreement or for the protection of District highways.

46 Every person driving on or using the highway in contravention of a regulation, limitation or prohibition made under section 41 or who is not in compliance with an agreement under section 42 shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty under section 26.

c) By renumbering Parts 10 and 1 1 and sections 41 through 43 as follows: PART 11 - MUNICIPAL TICKET INFORMATIONS

47 Pursuant to the Central Saanich Ticket lnformation Utilization Bylaw, No. 1178, 1995, as amended, this bylaw may be enforced by means of a ticket in the form prescribed for the purpose of Section 264 of the Community Charter

PART II - SEVERABILTY AND REPEAL

48. lf a court of competent jurisdiction finds any part, section or subsection to be unenforceable, the remainder of the bylaw shall be severed from the impugned part and remain in force.

49. Street and Traffic Regulations Bylaw 1967 , as amended, is hereby repealed.

d) By inserting Schedule "E" as follows

{00379693; 2 }

Page 94 of 119 SCHEDULE J'E''

EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC AGREEMENT

DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

TRAFFIC AND HWAYS REGULATION BYLA NO. 1535.2006

APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC PERMIT

APPLICANT NAME:

APPLICANT ADDRESS

APPLICANT PHONE NO.: APPLICANT EMAIL:

PURPOSE FOR APPLICATION:

PROPOSED ROUTE

DATE(S) AND TIME(S):

DETAILS OF VEHICLE(S): YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL:

LICENCE NO:

LENGTH WIDTH:

OVERSIZE LENGTH OVERSIZE WIDTH:

LICENCED GROSS WEIGHT EXCESS GROSS WEIGHT:

THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICANT AGREES TO ASSUME RESPONSBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE OR EXPENSE WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THE ABOVE NOTED EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC AND AGREES TO PAY THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH FOR ANY SUCH DAMAGE OR EXPENSE. DATED ,20-AT CENTRAL SAANICH, BRITISH COLUMBIA:

WITNESS NAME APPLICANT NAME:

APPLICATION: APPROVED: REJECTED:

ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS -

SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER

DATE APPROVED OR REJECTED

{00379693; 2 }

Page 95 of 119 (e) by inserting Schedule "F" as follows":

C€ntål gaanich Traffic rnd Hþhray+ REgulation Amendmerrt BylEn No. Ë¡O1, 2016 uF' SCT:[gDtfLB

lEæ'D ,/ô\ .Ë¡¡t 9USJECT 3ÍlE lgül

lffiffiffi

lUTflP FM HEð

3 lf any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Bylaw is for any reason found invalid by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Bylaw

READ A FIRST TIME the - daY of ,2016

READ A SECOND TIME the daY of 2016 -

{00379693; 2 }

Page 96 of 119 READ A THIRD TIME the daY of 2016. - ADOPTED the day of 2016. -

Ryan Windsor, Mayor Liz Cornwell, Corporate Officer

{00379693; 2 }

Page 97 of 119 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1902,2016

A Bylaw to amend Municipal Ticket Information Sysfem Bylaw No. 1545, 2006

The Council of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows

1 This bylaw may be cited as "Municipal Ticket lnformation System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016".

2 Municipat Ticket lnformation Sysfem Bylaw No. 1545,2006, is amended by inserting the following offences in Appendix 8:

77 Contravene Regulation, Limitation, Prohibition 41 $200.00 78 Extraordinary Use of Highway without Agreement 42,43 $200.00 79 Failure to Comply with Agreement 42,43 $200,00

READ A FIRST TIME the day of 2016. - READ A SECOND TIME the daY of ,2016 - READ A THIRD TIME the daY of 2016 - ADOPTED the day of 2016 -

Ryan Windsor, Mayor Liz Cornwell, Corporate Officer

{00381274i 1 \

Page 98 of 119 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1901

A Bylaw to Amend Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw No. 1535, 2006

The Council of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Gentral Saanich Traffic and Highways Regutation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901, 2016".

2. "Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Bylaw No. 1535, 2006 is amended as follows:

a) By inserting new definitions alphabetically in section 2 as follows:

"Commercial Truck" means a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight in excess of 5500 kg, an overall height in excess of 2.4 metres or an overall length exceeding 7 metres, designed or used primarily for the transportation of goods, including a vehicle designated ãnd used primarily for drawing other vehicles, but excluding recreational vehiáes of the Canada Post Office, and vehicles engaged in routine maintenance work by the municipality;

"Extraordinary Traffic" means the carriage of goods or persons in vehicles over a highway in tlre District that is not a provincial añerial highway that, in conjunction with thã nature or existing condition of the highway, Council considers is so extraordinary in the quality or quantity of the goods or the number of persons carried, the mode or time of use of ine highway, or the speed at which the vehicles are driven or operated, that it substantially alters or increases the burden imposed on the highway through its proper use by extraordinary traffic, and causes damage to the highway or resulting expense to the District beyond what is reasonable or ordinary;

"lndustrial Truck" means a Commercial Truck that with or without a trailer has three or more axles;

b) By inserting a new Part 1O and accompanying sections 41 through 44 as follows:

PART 1O - EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC 41. Where in the opinion of Council, any highway is liable to damage through Extraordinary Traffic thereon, Council may regulate, limit or prohibit the use of the highway by any person operating or in charge of the Extraordinary Traffic, or owning the goods carried thereby or the vehicles used therein,

42. Without limitation, that portion of Hovey Road shown outlined in Schedule "F" is closed to any class of Commercial Truck or lndustrial Truck traffic except where the owner of the truck has entered into an agreement with the District under section 43 to allow a truck of a stipulated class, size and weight to travel on that portion of Hovey Road.

Page 99 of 119 Central Saanich CouncilTraffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901,2016 Page 2

43. Any persons to whom sections 41 and 42 might otherwise apply may, with the approval of Council, enter into an agreement in the form prescribed in Schedule "E" for the payment to the District of compensation in respect of the damage or expense which may, in the opinion of Council be caused by the Extraordinary Traffic, and thereupon that person shall not in respect of the damage or expense which may, in the opinion of Council be caused by the Extraordinary Traffic, and thereupon that person shall not in respect of that traffic be subject to any prohibition or penalty prescribed by this bylaw.

44. lf a person breaches an agreement under section 43, the District Engineer shall provide the person with written notice of the breach and the person shall have 10 days to cure the breach.

45. Subject to providing written notice under section 44, lhe District Engineer may cancel, suspend or modify the terms of the agreement under section 43, where the Engineer's opinion there is non-compliance with the agreement or for the protection of District highways.

46. Every person driving on or using the highway in contravention of a regulation, limitation or prohibition made under section 41 or who is not in compliance with an agreement under section 42 shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty under section 26.

c) By renumbering Parts 10 and 1 1 and sections 41 through 43 as follows PART 11 - MUNICIPAL TICKET INFORMATIONS 47. Pursuant to the Central Saanich Ticket lnformation Utilization Bylaw No. 1178, 1995, as amended, this bylaw may be enforced by means of a ticket in the form prescribed for the purpose of Section 264 of the Community Charter. PART II - SEVERABILITY AND REPEAL 48. lf a court of competent jurisdiction finds any part, section or subsection to be unenforceable, the remainder of the bylaw shall be severed from the impugned part and remain in force.

49. Street and Traffic Regulations Bylaw 1967, as amended, is hereby repealed

d) By inserting Schedule "E" as follows:

Page 100 of 119 Central Saanich CouncilTraffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901,2016 Pase 3

SCHEDULE "E''

EXTRAORDI NARY TRAFFIC AGREEMENI

DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS REGULATION BYLAW NO.1535,2006

APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC PERMIT

APPLICANT NAME:

APPLICANT ADDRESS:

APPLICANT PHONE NO. APPLICANT EMAIL:

PURPOSE FOR APPLICATION

PROPOSED ROUTE:

DATE(S)AND TIME(S)

DETATLS OF VEHTCLE(S): (YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL)

LICENCE NO:

LENGTH WIDTH:

OVERSIZE LENGTH OVERSIZE WIDTH

LICENCED GROSS WEIGHT: EXCESS GROSS WEIGHT:

THE ABOVE REFERENECED APPLICANT AGREES TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE OR EXPENSE WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THE ABOVE NOTED EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC AND AGREES TO PAY THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH FOR ANY SUCH DAMAGE OR EXPENSE. DATED ,20-AT CENTRAL SAANICH, BRITISH COLUMBIA:

WITNESS NAME APPLICANT NAME

APPLICATION: APPROVED REJECTED:

ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER:

DATE APPROVED OR REJECTED

Page 101 of 119 Central Saanich Council Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901,2016 Paqe 4

e) By inserting Schedule "F" as follows:

Central Saanich Traffic and Highways Regulation Amendment BYlaw No. 1901, 2016 SCHEDULE ''F"

LEGEND A ecale 1,8@0 SUBJECT SITE

rsm|P NRS NAÎONS

1SÂRTUP iIRSI MTffiS

MIUP FIRS MNOXS

EÆruP fNST MfìSS

! ¡

Page 102 of 119 Central Saanich CouncilTraffic and Highways Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1901,2016 Paqe 5

3. lf any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Bylaw is for any reason found invalid by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Bylaw.

READ A FIRST TIME on this day of 2016.

READ A SECOND TIME on this day of 2016.

READ A THIRD TIME on this day of 2016.

ADOPTED this day of 2016

Ryan Windsor Liz Cornwell Mayor Corporate Officer

Page 103 of 119 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1902,2016

A Bylaw to amend Municipal Ticket Information Sysfem Bylaw No. 1545, 2006

The Council of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows

1 This bylaw may be cited as "Municipal Ticket lnformation System Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1902, 2016".

2 Municipat Ticket lnformation Sysfem Bylaw No. 1545,2006, is amended by inserting the following offences in Appendix 8:

77 Contravene Regulation, Limitation, Prohibition 41 $200.00 78 Extraordinary Use of Highway without Agreement 42,43 $200.00 79 Failure to Comply with Agreement 42,43 $200,00

READ A FIRST TIME the day of 2016. - READ A SECOND TIME the daY of ,2016 - READ A THIRD TIME the daY of 2016 - ADOPTED the day of 2016 -

Ryan Windsor, Mayor Liz Cornwell, Corporate Officer

{00381274i 1 \

Page 104 of 119 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

For the Committee of the Whole meeting on December 12, 2016

To: Patrick Robins File: Chief Administrative Officer

From: Paul Murray Priority: Strategic Director of Financial Services Operational

Date: December 06, 2016

Re: Long Term Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council approve the 2016 Long Term Financial Plan as proposed.

BACKGROUND: Council has made the introduction of a Long Term Financial Plan a strategic priority for 2016.

For some households, financial sustainability is thought of as being able to maintain our current day to day lifestyle. Can we afford our rent, food, entertainment, clothing, travel and medical etc. For those who own homes or businesses, the thinking can be more long term, and the planning more when mortgages are paid off or businesses sold to finance retirements.

Local governments need to think long term as well, as the investments in infrastructure are significant and longer term in nature. While individuals come and go, local governments need to continue in perpetuity to acquire and manage a stock of financial and physical assets that are critical for the provision of services to current and future generations. Municipal Councils provide a legal means by which the community acts as a collective body to own operate and finance services, infrastructure and assets.

Financial sustainability is about being mindful of the financial well-being of future generations.

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 105 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 06, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Long Term Financial Plan

To be financially sustainable local governments need to be strategic thinkers and planners. Long-term financial planning is the process of aligning financial capacity with the community vision and long-term service objectives. This is achieved through development of a set of financial strategies and an effective linkage to the community vision (OCP) through a series of plans. These include the Corporate Strategic Plan, Organizational Capacity Assessment, Asset Management Plan and Twenty Five Year Capital Plan. Supplemental plans such as Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan, Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, Pavement Management Plan and Facilities (FLAMP) Plan also inform the process.

DISCUSSION: To ensure all strategies and recommendations are aligned and consistent with a strategic goal of Financial Sustainability a framework is needed. The 2016 Long Term Financial Plan will establish five key objectives and guide the District towards a financially sustainable future:

1. Recognized value for services 2. Predictable infrastructure investment 3. Competitive property taxes 4. Responsible debt management 5. Improved reserves and reserve funds

Implementing a framework is a key mitigation factor in managing enterprise risk, meeting the challenges of infrastructure investment and reaching effective service levels for assets and operations.

The four pillars of an effective Long Term Financial Planning Framework are:

1. Community Vision and Priorities: (Our Vision) Official Community Plan Corporate Strategic Plan Master Plans (Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Facilities, Pavement)

2. Strategies for Financial Strength and Stability (How we get there) Recognized Value for Services Predictable Infrastructure Investment Competitive Property Taxes Responsible Debt Management Improved Reserves and Surplus

3. Financial Policies and Performance Measures (How we measure what we do) Capacity Assessment, Service Standards, Service Performance

4. Budgeting and Planning ( How we plan ahead) Five Year Financial Plan Twenty Five Year Capital Plan.

Page 106 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 06, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Long Term Financial Plan

Current Status: Many of the components of the framework are already in place:

Community Vision and Priorities: The municipality has outlined a long term vision for the community through the Official Community Plan and this is supplemented by a series of Master Plans for Water and Sewer Utilities, Integrated Stormwater Management, Pavement Management and Facilities (FLAMP). A Parks Master Plan and Updated Pavement Management Plan are also expected to be prepared during 2017 to 2019.

The Corporate Strategic Plan is in place. It was originally completed in 2001. The Plan is based on themes and strategic directions, which include statements of ongoing priorities for each Strategic Direction, Goal and Action. The Plan directs and unifies all other corporate planning documents.

Strategies for Financial Strength and Stability: These strategies are in progress and will be added to the plan as they are approved:

 An Organization Capacity Assessment is under way and when completed in 2017, will provide a set of service standards and performance measures for all areas of operations.

 A User Fee and Charge policy is being developed and all fees and charges will be reviewed in the first few months of 2017 and annually thereafter.

 An Asset Management Plan is being prepared and will provide a set of long term infrastructure replacement approaches for all asset categories. This plan will be refined over time.

 A Development Financing Strategy will be developed in early 2017 to reflect the approach taken to use Development Cost Charges, Amenities and other contributions to help fund development.

 A Debt Service Approach and Reserves and Surplus Policy are in place.

 A Property Taxation Policy is in place (Five Year Financial Plan each year).

Financial Policies and Performance: Service Standards and Service Performance Measures are being identified as part of the Organization Capacity Assessment. This is expected to be completed in 2017 and they will be incorporated in the Five Year Financial Plan, Strategic Plan and Annual Progress Report once approved.

Financial Planning:

 A Five Year Financial Plan is in place and will be renewed again in spring of 2017 and each year thereafter.  A Twenty Five Year Capital Plan will be developed subsequent to completion of the Asset Management Plan in 2017. This will itemize the approach described in the Asset Management Plan in more specific project detail and be used to inform the Five Year Financial Plan review process each year.

Page 107 of 119 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer December 06, 2016 For: December 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole Re: Long Term Financial Plan

Next Steps: The following steps will be undertaken to conclude the initial development of all components of the Financial Sustainability Framework. By the end of 2017 the work will be concluded and the information available to inform the next Five Year Planning cycle in 2018.  Organizational Capacity Assessment Complete by Fall 2017  Asset Management Plan Fall 2017 – Phase 2 in 2018  User Fee and Charge Review Spring 2017 and then annually  Twenty Five Year Capital Plan Fall 2017

CONCLUSION: Effective Long Term Financial Planning should be expected to evolve over time and be updated regularly.

The District has developed the majority of the components of a solid long term financial plan. Four significant pieces of work remain to complete the framework: An Organizational Capacity Assessment which will inform the provision of service standards and service performance, an Asset Management Plan that will outline how assets are renewed, added and improved over time and a User fee and Charge Review. When all are concluded a Twenty Five Year Capital Plan will be developed to inform the 2018 Five Year Financial planning process and each year thereafter.

If approved by Council, work will continue to develop the remaining components of the plan and a new section will be added to the website outlining the long term approach with links to the other plan documents and Five year Financial Plan process.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Murray Director of Financial Services Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report.

Patrick Robins

Chief Administrative Officer

Page 108 of 119

Long Term Financial Plan District of Central Saanich 2016

Page 109 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

1. Planning for our Financial Future

The District of Central Saanich is taking important steps toward managing the long term sustainability of the community’s assets and services. Financial stability is fundamental to the health of the community – only with stable and sufficient revenues, and careful planning of expenditures, will the District be able to provide important services its residents need and enjoy.

Although the District is in reasonable financial shape, revenue opportunities, expense pressures, and service demands are always changing. The scope and level of service demanded by citizens from their local government is greater than ever as residents and businesses struggle in the changing and competitive world we live in. The District cannot be certain of the same level of financial support from senior levels of government enjoyed in the past as the provincial and federal governments have their own budget challenges.

This document suggests a framework of long term financial planning that will establish five key objectives and guide the District towards a financially sustainable future:

1. Recognized value for services 2. Predictable infrastructure investment 3. Competitive property taxes 4. Responsible debt management 5. Improved reserves and reserve funds

Financial sustainability is about being mindful of the financial well-being of future generations.

Page 110 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

2. Long Term Financial Plan Framework

To be financially sustainable, local governments need to be strategic thinkers and planners, and municipal councils need to provide direction in the form of approved long term strategic plans. To ensure all strategies and recommendations are aligned and consistent with a strategic goal of financial sustainability a framework is needed. Implementing a framework is a key mitigation factor in managing enterprise risk, meeting the challenges of infrastructure investment and reaching effective service levels for assets and operations.

When an entity embraces strategic planning it gives the community confidence that decisions are well thought out and sustainable over the long term. These plans should provide the community a clear understanding of the direction Council is moving in, and enough information to form and voice an opinion. Typically, the District’s framework builds upon the vision outlined in the Official Community Plan and includes the following:

Community Vision and Priorities: (Our Vision)

Official Community Plan Corporate Strategic Plan Master Plans (Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Facilities, Pavement)

Strategies for Financial Strength and Stability (How we get there)

Recognized Value for Services Predictable Infrastructure Investment Responsible Debt Management Competitive Property Taxes Improved Reserves and Surplus

Financial Policies & Performance (How we measure what we do)

Capacity Assessment, Service Standards, Service Performance

Financial Planning (How we plan ahead)

Twenty Five Year Capital Plan Five Year Financial Plan

Page 111 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

3. Community Vision and Priorities

The municipality has outlined a long term vision for the community through the Official Community Plan and this is actioned through Corporate Strategic Plans from time to time.

A series of master plans have also been developed for Water and Sewer Utilities, FLAMP Facilities, Integrated Stormwater Management, and Pavement Management.

A Parks Master Plan and Updated Pavement Management Plan are expected to be prepared during 2017 to 2019.

Progress is reported out annually.

4. Strategies for Financial Strength &Stability

4.1 Recognized Value for Services The District provides a wide range of services. Some are required for a growing community, while others are required as a core responsibility of any municipality to ensure the safety of its residents. It is important to provide the means to effectively deliver these services today, and into the future. The District must carefully plan and prioritize the use of its resources to ensure its service commitments are sustainable now and into the future.

Moving Forward In order to focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, the District is completing an Organizational Capacity Assessment and will be fully implementing service-based budgets effective for budget 2018. Service Review will become a regular ongoing process in future.

A User Fee and Charge Review will also be completed in 2017 and updated annually thereafter. The identification of individual services is required in order to value and cost services, ensure decisions are aligned and consider service adjustments when making decisions. Clearly defined services will increase public awareness of costs and values aligned with services.

Page 112 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

Organization Capacity Assessment and Service Review An Organization Capacity Assessment is well under way and when completed in 2017, will provide a set of service standards and performance measures for all areas of operations. These will help guide a long term approach to management of service expectations, performance and cost. It is intended to assist in ensuring that: • The District’s key business areas are aligned with future needs; • Operational activities are demonstrably efficient and effective; • Staffing levels are appropriate for the current and future level of service; • Organizational structure provides efficient and effective service delivery; • Strategic and financial plans are well informed; • Employee culture contributes to the overall organization success. • Service levels are quantified and Council can define desired service levels in the budget process. In addition to this organizational capacity review, service review is expected to become a continual, ongoing process and be incorporated into strategic planning and annual budgeting cycles. In this respect, a view to service delivery efficiency and effectiveness will be incorporated on a go forward basis.

User Fees and Charges Review In order to be financially sustainable, the District works to diversify its revenues and reduce its reliance on any one source of revenue as much as possible. The District diversifies its revenue base between property tax, utility fees, development levies, program fees, permits & licence fees, investment income, and fines & penalties.

Municipalities generally rely on two major sources of revenue: property taxes and user fees (including utility fees). User fees are generally levied by local governments for services that are direct to a user or household (programs, utilities), whereas property taxes are levied to finance services that are provided broadly to the whole community (roads, police, fire, storm drainage). In setting taxes and user fees, the District must strike a balance between reasonable access to services for all residents, while ensuring users of the programs and services pay a reasonable share of the costs.

Fees are restricted to the actual cost of providing the service, and how the fee was determined must be made available to the public if requested under Section 194 of the Community Charter. For a user fee to be widely accepted there should be a clear link between the benefit received and the fee paid, fairness in that those who use the service pay for it and easily implemented and administered while also simple and easy to understand.

Page 113 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

4.2 Predictable Infrastructure Investment

The Districts infrastructure is aging and funds must be committed to ensure it is properly maintained and renewed. The city has an obligation to protect its investment and strike a balance between new facilities and the proper maintenance of existing infrastructure. Effective asset management sets out a strategic approach for the replacement, addition and improvement of assets over the long term.

It is important to focus on existing assets and strategically choose between investing in what we have, building future expansions and/or revitalizations, and divest what may no longer be required.

Moving Forward An Asset Management Plan is being prepared and will provide a set of long term infrastructure replacement approaches for all asset categories. This plan will be refined in 2017 to include new capital investments needed to provide growth capacity.

A Development Financing Strategy will be developed in 2017 to bring together current approaches – Development Cost Charges, contributions on subdivision and amenities.

Asset Management The District owns and operates over $163 million in core infrastructure which services the needs of residents, businesses and visitors to the area. An Asset Management Plan sets out a strategic approach for the replacement, addition and improvement of assets over the long term. Asset management is the process of gathering the most current and applicable information available to formulate the best possible informed decisions regarding the building, operating, maintenance, renewal, replacement, and disposal of infrastructure assets, over the long term.

Maintain assets in an appropriate state of repair. Maintaining core infrastructure and amenities in an appropriate state of repair is critical to the long-term financial health and resilience of the community, and helps ensure asset management obligations are not deferred and infrastructure deficits do not accumulate to unacceptable levels. An Infrastructure Report Card enables the annual assessment and reporting of infrastructure condition.

Optimize New Capital Investments. Before adding new facilities, the municipality will consider repurposing and right-sizing existing facilities, and continue to advance the principles of colocation and functional integration of services to enhance operational efficiency and customer service. All new facilities will be designed with flexibility and adaptability in mind.

Page 114 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

Consistent with leading practice, the District plans to reallocate and identify revenues specifically for asset investment to a separate Asset Levy on the property tax notice. Using specifically earmarked Asset Levy funds as well as other revenue sources to proactively invest in not only routine maintenance, but also the complete replacement of aging infrastructure, will help ensure that quality services continue to be provided well into the future. The Asset Levy will: (1) fund current year capital budgets, (2) fund transfers to reserves, and/or (3) fund debt retirement.

Development Financing A Development Financing Strategy will be prepared in 2017 which will bring together the Districts current approach to the use of development cost charges, onsite services, excess or extended services, land dedication for park, roadways and amenity contributions as development financing tools..

Page 115 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

4.3 Responsible Debt Management

Like other municipalities and senior levels of government, the District uses debt in its mix of payment methods to fund capital investments. This allows payment to be made over a longer timeframe to align with the useful life of the underlying capital assets, and ensures that more residents and businesses benefit from them.

The District will make every effort to minimize the impact of debt-servicing costs on the taxpayer by managing existing and future debt levels.

Consider debt financing for: • Increased or new capital projects providing services to residents • Projects tied to third party matching funds • Project costs not recoverable from development charges • Projects that have a useful life greater than ten years Consider actions to use debt efficiently: • As debt charges decline through the retirement of debt, the District will apply savings towards full life cycle costing of the city’s infrastructure • The term of debt will be structured for the shortest period to reduce overall financing costs while considering current and future taxpayer benefit. The preferred term is 10 or 15 years to the extent possible. • The current and forecasted interest rate environment

Moving Forward A more detailed Debt Management Plan will be prepared as part of the Twenty Five Year Capital Plan in 2017.

Debt Servicing The municipality takes a very careful and strategic approach to its use of debt, ensuring a balanced operating budget and keeping property tax and fees at an affordable level. As part of this strategy, the water utility continues to finance its infrastructure replacement programs from a balance of debt financing and current revenues. This will help maintain modest overall debt and minimize interest costs over the long term.

Looking ahead, the general capital program and the sewer utility will also focus on maintaining the same approach to maintain a positive long term debt profile. Fire Hall debt is planned to be retired on an accelerated basis.

Page 116 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

4.4 Competitive Property Taxes

The District must respond to the demand for programs, services and infrastructure maintenance in an affordable manner. As a result, a balance is struck between the conflicting goals of minimizing tax increases, maintaining existing programs, services and infrastructure and providing new services in a climate of increasing costs.

The District has an established approach in this regard:

1. Balanced Taxation The practice of the municipality has been to set tax rates in order to maintain tax stability. This is consistent with many municipalities across the province and is accomplished by maintaining the proportionate relationship provided between the property classes, while taking into account for new construction values, deletions from the tax roll and changes in property classes, and assessment changes that are considered to be significant. This practice allows taxpayers in the municipality to be confident that in any year, their property tax bill will increase proportionately to the increase in tax revenue required year over year, taking into account assessment increases of their property to the assessment class average. This is particularly important in a rural agricultural municipality with a significant proportion of ALR farmland that is both assessed and taxed at proportionally low levels of taxation.

2. Keep property tax and user fees affordable. Property taxes in recent years have seen moderate increases, ranging from 2.84% to 5.22 %, for a five year average of 3.88%. During this period, the municipality has invested in public safety such as Fire Station 1; has invested in core infrastructure, such as sewer and water supply system upgrades; and upgraded transportation infrastructure for pedestrians, bikes and vehicles. Looking ahead, the need to replace ageing infrastructure will continue to put increasing pressure on the budget. Understanding the long-term impacts on tax and user fees arising from capital investment decisions, including debt servicing, ongoing operating costs and asset lifecycle costs, will be a key consideration in development of a Long Term Financial Plan with affordability in mind.

Moving Forward Continue to review the approach during the Five Year Financial Planning process each year.

Page 117 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

4.5 Improved Reserves and Surplus

Reserves and reserve funds are a critical part of a municipality’s long-term financial plan. Maintaining adequate reserves allow the District the flexibility to respond to uncontrollable factors like economic cycles, short-term and one-time needs.

The District strives to maintain solid reserves and reserve fund balances to ensure that future liabilities can be met.

District Policy Fin-2014-01 was developed to provide direction for the establishment and maintenance of Reserves and Surplus in meeting the short-term and long term financial goals of the District.

The policy is based on the following: • Healthy reserve/surplus levels are important in achieving community goals including financial health and stability; • The District will strive to be proactive in terms of financial health and stability; • Actual reserve/surplus balances need to be benchmarked with other jurisdictions and with pre-determined targets on an ongoing basis to gauge whether financial health is being achieved; • Reserve/surplus goals need to be consistent with and supportive of realistic longer-term financial plans; • Reserve/surplus appropriations need to conform to the statutory/legal requirements of the Local Government Act and the Community Charter, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and public sector accounting board (PSAB) recommendations.

Moving Forward Continued work to achieve the reserve and surplus targets outlined in the policy is planned. The Policy also will be updated in 2017.

Page 118 of 119 Central Saanich Long Term Financial Plan 2016

5. Financial Policies and Performance Measures

Demand for service must be balanced with the ability to pay, and between the conflicting goals of minimizing tax increases, maintaining existing services and infrastructure, and the cost of adding new services. As pressures on operating budgets rise, the District will need to work to identify financially sustainable service levels.

It is best practice to not only define appropriate levels of service, but to also consider all forms of service delivery in order to ensure District resources are being used efficiently. The District must be able to demonstrate to the community value for services provided. Services need to be delivered in an effective and efficient manner, and shared with neighbouring municipalities or other agencies where possible. The most efficient and effective delivery of service must be considered, including in house delivery, privately contracted services, and partnerships.

Moving Forward Service Standards and Service Performance Measures are being identified as part of the Organization Capacity Assessment. This work is expected to be completed in 2017 and the data will be used to develop a service based Five Year Financial Plan for 2018 and built into Strategic Plans and Annual Progress Reports once approved.

6. Financial Planning

The last component of the framework is the preparation of a Twenty Five Year Capital Plan and a Five Year Financial Plan each year

Moving Forward When the Asset Management Plan is completed work will begin on detailing out a Twenty Five Year Capital Plan in more specific asset detail. In turn this will inform the preparation of future Five Year Financial Plans each year.

Page 119 of 119