THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, September 11, 2017 - 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)
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3.1. Agenda of the September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting Recommendation: That the agenda of the September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting be approved.
4. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS
4.1. Victoria Compost Education Center Pg. 7 - 18 Marika Smith, Executive Director
Background: • Letter to Council and Fact Sheets • Presentation to the District of Central Saanich
5. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
5.1. 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Pg. 19 - 39 Permit
Report from the Planner dated August 25, 2017, attached.
Recommendation: That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council 1. authorize issuance of a Development Permit for the proposed exterior facade renovation of the existing shopping centre at 7103 West Saanich Road and new signage subject to: a. compliance with the attached plans; and, b. tenant fascia signage complying with the restrictions set out in the permit and the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw; and, 2. further the application to vary Section 43 of the Land Use Bylaw to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the subject property to a total of 105 spaces regardless of tenant occupancy (within the permitted uses of the C-1 zone) by directing staff to undertake the required notification for the Development Variance Permit.
5.2. 483 Dunmora Court - Marine Shoreline Development Permit Pg. 40 - 60
Report from the Building Inspector dated August 29, 2017, attached. Recommendation: That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council authorize issuance of a Marine Shoreline Development Permit for the proposed foreshore trail at 483 Dunmora Court subject to: 1. compliance with the submitted drawings (dated June 7, 2017) with the cottage parking eliminated; 2. compliance with all recommendations contained within the Shoreline Environmental Assessment and Mitigation report by Corvidae Environmental Consulting Inc, including the Erosion and Sediment Control Mitigations; and, 3. if necessary for tree removal, apply for and obtain required permits and submit a replanting plan at a 3:1 ratio
5.3. Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issue Pg. 61 - 126
Report from the Interim Manager of Planning and Building dated September 1, 2017, attached.
Background: • Late Item - Minutes of the CRD Environmental Services Committee Meeting July 26, 2017 • Late Item - CRD Staff Report from the July 26, 2017 Environmental Services Committee Meeting Recommendation: That the following series of recommendations pertaining to the Brentwood Bay engagement "Navigating the Issues" be endorsed by the Committee and presented to Council for consideration and subsequent direction to staff: Recommendation: 1.1 Brentwood Bay Clean-Up: a) Authorize the allocation of staff time and use of municipal equipment (within existing resources), to assist with the clean-up of Brentwood Bay under the leadership and funding of the Province (removal of unauthorized floats, dock sections) and Transport Canada (removal of derelict/abandoned vessels and mooring buoys that are impeding navigations), commencing in mid to late October 2017. Recommendation: b) Submit a request to the Capital Regional District (CRD) to waive tipping fees for portions of the clean-up initiative not funded by the Transport Canada Abandoned Boats Program.
Committee of the Whole Agenda September 11, 2017 Page 2 of 147 Recommendation: c) Continue to work with the Tsartlip First Nation to facilitate the clean- up initiative, including requesting access to the Tsartlip boat launch for directly related purposes. Recommendation: 1.2 Designated Sewage Area a) Apply to Transport Canada to have Brentwood Bay listed as a Designated Sewage Area under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations. Recommendation: 1.3 Designate Navigation Channels a) Work with Transport Canada and the local community to encourage the establishment and marking of designated navigation channels within Brentwood Bay. Recommendation: b) Work with Transport Canada and the local community to investigate the need for a fourth designated navigation channel into Tod Inlet. Recommendation: c) Send a letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Canadian Hydrographic Service) to request that the Transport Canada document outlining the navigational lines into Brentwood Bay be added to Chart 3441, with an explanation that this action would help to keep the navigable waterways into Brentwood Bay clear and safe. Recommendation: 1.4 Establish Direct Regulatory Authority a) Make Application for a (Nominal Rate) Land Act tenure over the portions of Brentwood Bay that are not already under other privately held Land Act tenures. Recommendation: b) Following the experience of other jurisdictions, create or amend the District’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning by-laws to limit and designate areas, tenure and conditions for permanent moorings, length of time anchorage is permitted, live-aboards and floats in the portions of Brentwood Bay that are under municipal jurisdiction. Recommendation: 1.5 Establish a Management Plan (Recommended for Approval in Principle, with further detailed information brought back to Council) a) Create a Management Plan for the monitoring of the tenure with partner agencies. Further information to be brought back to Council with respect to this recommendation on duration, number, location, standards and regulation. Recommendation: b) Continue to work with local marinas to establish, promote and monitor facilities for visiting and resident boaters, ensuring access to sewage dumping, garbage disposal and parking facilities. Recommendation: c) Continue to work on a regional basis with member municipalities of the CRD, BC Parks, the Tsartlip First Nation and the community of Willis Point in the Juan de Fuca electoral area. Recommendation:
Committee of the Whole Agenda September 11, 2017 Page 3 of 147 d) Continue to work with the existing live aboard and upland communities to understand and consider their needs and options for housing throughout the decision-making process, including the possibility of nominal rate mooring for appropriate vessels (holding tanks required). Recommendation: 1.6 Utilize Intergovernmental and Community Relationships a) Send a letter to the Government of Canada in support Bill C-219, tabled by Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Ladysmith Sheila Malcolmson – an Act to amend the Canadian Shipping Act 2001, aimed at reducing the environmental, economic and navigational hazards to Canadian waterways and coastlines posed by abandoned vessels. Recommendation: b) Send a letter to the Government of British Columbia to encourage adherence to the 2012 Union of BC Municipalities endorsed resolution to adopt the 'Washington model' for vessel registration and disposal. Recommendation: c) Utilize inter-governmental relationships with senior government agencies to monitor legislative changes that impact the District’s on-going efforts in Brentwood Bay, and to periodically report changes to Council. Recommendation: d) Work with senior levels of government, Island Health (VIHA), Tsartlip First Nation and other Capital Regional District members and societies to monitor and address concerns about water quality in Brentwood Bay. Recommendation: 1.7 Related Operational Recommendations a) Prepare a communication and signage strategy to increase public awareness of the prohibition of sewage discharge in the Brentwood Bay area, including the associated environmental impacts. Recommendation: b) Continue to work with the community to determine and recommend ways to address ongoing parking conflicts in the Brentwood Bay area (consider a parking study, if warranted). Recommendation: c) Investigate and, if determined appropriate, install higher capacity garbage cans in the Brentwood Bay area.
5.4. Residential Infill and Densification Next Steps Pg. 127 - 138
Report from the Interim Manager of Current Planning dated August 24, 2017, attached.
Background: • Late Item - Zoning • Late Item - Densification Study Ideas Recommendation: That the Committee of the Whole recommend Council: 1. Reaffirm its strategic priority to update housing densification and infill policy based on the initial 2012 “Residential Densification Study”, and
Committee of the Whole Agenda September 11, 2017 Page 4 of 147 2. Authorize staff to prepare a request for proposal for a consultant selection process.
5.5. Review of Zoning Limitations for residential homes on A1 Property.
Referred from the July 31, 2017 Regular Council Meeting.
That the issue of reviewing zoning limitations for residential homes on A1 property be a brief discussion topic at a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
6. COMMUNITY, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & FACILITIES
6.1. Traffic Safety Concerns Pg. 139
Referred from the July 31, 2017 Regular Council Meeting.
That the concerns of traffic safety and how Council works with staff to resolve those matters be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting to be held September 11, 2017.
Background: • Letter from W Burns dated July 11, 2017
7. PARKS & RECREATION
8. PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION
9. WATER & WASTE MANAGEMENT
9.1. Expansion of Sewer Collection Area No 1 - Bylaw 1922 Pg. 140 - 145
Report from the Senior Engineer Technician dated July 19, 2017, attached. Recommendation: That Bylaw No. 1922, 2017 be considered for 3 readings at the September 18, 2017 Regular Council Meeting.
10. ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE
10.1. Visual Identity Standards Logo and Coat of Arms Pg. 146 - 147
For Discussion.
Background: • Late Item - Logo • Late Item - Municipal Coat of Arms
11. NEW BUSINESS
Committee of the Whole Agenda September 11, 2017 Page 5 of 147 12. ADJOURNMENT
Committee of the Whole Agenda September 11, 2017 Page 6 of 147 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CEN 1903 Mt. Newton Cross Road Saanlchton BC V8M 2A9 phone (250) 544-4277 fax (250) 65
-
General lnformation *'v,9w'å'T^ "t';:;i;'iy rd'et ielL ( n a¿ ^",¿ Contact Person Phone Email fl4;;'¡^"",\rutH'u 2^r?t- 3 ,¿ - 96 Vë ia @ umlod.¿ê.cA
Application must be submitted by noon at least 10 days prior to the '"&'t',iïiåî"'.YÍ,. vatLrn/tr lLo )? , q - meeting date Topic Purpose ol Presentation ftñor^ation only I nequesting a letter of support Other (provide details below) 'þï tr;ä'"ä'f2 fr r-rz,r, ^tuúul-
I have attached background materials: es nruo Printed background information should be submitted for distribution with the agenda, or bring 15 copies to the meeting. NOTE: lf attaching document(s), this can be done upon submission
Audio/Visual Presentation es Eto Presentation materials need to be submitted by noon on the Friday before the meeting and tested on Municipal equipment.
For Office Use
Request Received on: Approved by Mayor: Applicant Responded to SUBMIT
Page 7 of 147 Com ost Educ0tion Centre
Dear Mayor and Council, May 5,2OI7
The Compost Education Centre (CEC) is a project of the Victoria Compost and Conservation Education Society, a not-for-profit, charitable organization. Since 1992, the CEC has provided in-school and community educational programs for all ages on composting, soil conservation and environmental stewardship throughout our Capital Regional District (CRD). The CEC promotes organic and ecological gardening practices as a means of reducing the health and environmental effects of chemical gardening practices that can be harmful to natural systems, as well as promoting the health, environmental and social benefits of local food prod uction.
Since the Capital Region-wide food waste ban launch in January of 20t5, residents have needed to find a wayto divertthe nearly 40%of food scrapsthat make up an average household's garbage stream. On-site composting is the most ecological and economical solution for recycling this waste as resource back into our soil systems. ln order to implement a successful household or community level composting system, education and guidance are the necessary first steps towards a sustainable closed loop system. Diverting food waste at the source is a very relevant and cost-effective area to target in terms of greenhouse gas and waste reduction as well as providing soil conservation education. Within that educational model, come opportunities to promote community-driven composting initiatives for residents and learning opportunities for food waste reduction. Residents are empowered with the choice to compost on site in their backyard versus hiring a collection service, which will save money in the long term and reduce the volume of waste collection vehicle traffic on Central Saanich roadways.
We would be happy to attend a council meeting to offer a brief presentation highlighting our services and how we can assist Central Saanich residents with their composting and waste reduction needs. One very tangible and cost-effective way to educate your residents about on-site composting options would be to establish a compost demonstration area on municipal grounds. The City of Colwood have done this by installing three food waste digesters on their grounds with signage and have found it to be a very helpful educational tool for residents.
please let me know if this would be of interest to you and I would be happy to present to council as a delegate.
Since
Marika Smith Executive Director [email protected] -Èrrr6 North Park Street, Victoria, BC VBT 1c9 Canada [250) 386-WORM [e676) FAX [2s0) 386-9678 E-mail: info(ôcompost.bc.ca Website: www.compost.bc.ca Base Funding Provided by the Capital Regional District and The City of Victoria
Page 8 of 147 Factsheet Series #3 ost Edu n Backyard Food Waste Digester Centre
Food waste digesters are the easiest way to compost any type of kitchen scraps, including hard to manage kitch- en waste like meat, breads, dairy and processed foods. Since these food scraps often attract rodents, the en- closed, half-buried digester acts as a deterrent, keeping rodents out of your compost and away from your home. Digesters can also be used to compost pet waste if placed at least 10 feet away from a food garden or fruit- producing tree. Digesters work very well in small backyards when the goal of composting is waste diversion as opposed to soil building, since they do not produce finished compost.
Effort Scale:
Easy 12345 Hard Put your food scraps in the cone and walk away!
Digesters are an flowers or edible plants to take advantage of the easy and effective nutrient-rich leachate they generate. However, if way to compost you are composting pet waste, be sure to locate food waste in your the digester at least 10 feet (3 metres) from your backyard. While veggie garden and fruit bearing trees and shrubs other methods of as a precaution, Adding some food scraps in ad- composting rely on dition to the pet waste will help the breakdown a balance of materi- process. lf you are composting catwaste, please als and aeration to note that cat litter cannot be added to the green work properly, this cone. *Do not add compostable/ biodegradable system does not. bags a Add all of your kitchen waste to your digester(s). lnstead, the digester While your digester can compost meat scraps, uses heat from the some other kinds of food scraps should also be sun and microbial added. Like humans, digesters work best on a activiÇ to develop a rapid decomposition process, well-balanced diet! Digesters cannot take any producing a nutrient-rich leachate that is absorbed carbon-based materials (i.e. paper towel, news- into the soil. The digester is an aerobic process (with paper, any yard or garden waste). air). a Your kitchen waste should provide more than enough moisture for the bin, but if the material An important distinction between digesters and oth- does appear dry, add a small amount of tepid er forms of composters is that digesters do not water. make finished compost and therefore do not need a people, one digester to be harvested. The leachate from your digester For a household of 2-4 be ln optimal conditions, each will still provide a valuable source of nutrients to all should sufficient. digester manage approximately 13 lbs of the plants surrounding it. can food scraps a week. However, if you're using di- gesters as your only composter and produce a How Do I Use a Digester? large amount of kitchen waste, you may need o lnstall one or two digesters in a well-drained, two digesters to ensure that all kitchen waste is sunny location in your yard. A minimum of 4- diverted from the garbage. 6 hours of direct sunlight will ensure successful a The food waste digester is not designed to pro- green cone operation. duce finished compost and is best left in position . lf possible, locate your digester away from out- for up to five years. At this time the decision can buildings, shrubs, wood piles or other rodent- be made to relocate it to another region of your friendly areas. garden. However, if the digester is still working . lf you choose, you can encircle your digester with efficiently at this time, you may not need to relo-
Page 9 of 147 Factsheet Series #3 Backyard Food Waste Digester cate it. lf you do choose to harvest the contents lncreasing the Pest Resistance of of yourr digester, the partially decomposed mat- ter removed should be dug (trenched) directly Your Green Cone lf you are especially concerned about rodents, you into a garden bed and allowed to finish compost- may wish to wrap the basket of your food digester in is harvest ing. lt not advisable to a digester that hardware cloth before installing it. This procedure is has been used for pet waste. completely optional, but can help increase the pest a The addition of a cereal-based accelerator pow- resistance of your green cone. der contalning natural bacteria is recommended Materials needed: to encourage microbial activiÇ in the green cone, -a 2 fl. x 6 ft. piece of 1/4 inch, especially in the initial stages of use and through 23 to L8 gauge hardware cloth pack- the winter if necessary. You will receive a -a small roll of thin wire or zap age of accelerator powder with the purchase of a straps green cone and can purchase more packages at -a pair of wire cutters the Compost Education Centre if need be. We recommend using the green cone a few times 3.. Wrap the black basket with before adding the accelerator to build up enough the hardware cloth, leaving go food scraps for the bacteria to to work on. about 1.2" hanging below, to a lf the level of food scraps in your digester ap- be folded up on the bottom. pears to not be decreasing but only getting high- er, you can often help lower its level by: 2. Use the zap straps or thin e pourifig in hot (not boiling)water wire to secure hardware cloth . stirring/poking it with a stick to the basket where it meets, on the bottom and around the Raised Bed Installation rim (just below it). lf the soil in your yard has insufficient draínage for 3. Cut the wire that comes green cone installation or if your soil is too rocky to above the rim in four or five allow yorr to dig the required two foot hole for the radial slices so that it can be green cone basket, instaiiing it in a raised bed (as folded down flat to ground seen in the photos below) can be a good alternative. level to make an apron. 4. Secure the black and green i+ i- LurrLJ +^rv +L^rrrL sqJÀçlJ,L'a¡La+¡ yq1nr,+ ll ltl the hole you dug, fill in hole, and cover the wire apron with dirt. Finish the rest of the in- sta llation as per ma nufactu rer's instructions.
1216 North Park St. Centre ItlC liorlù Pl¡r Strr Victoria, BC V8T 1C9 250-386-9676 Com ost [email protected] www.compost.bc.ca Educ ron Wednesday - Saturday Centre 10am-4pm
Core funding for the Compost Education Centre is generously provided by the CRD
Page 10 of 147 Victoria Compost Education Centre
Mission:
To encourage waste reduction, composting, local food production and soil conservation through education throughout the Capital Page 11 of 147 Regional District (CRD) Mandate
Provide public education programs to all residents of the CRD in the areas of composting, conservation and urban organic food production
Operate a demonstration site to observe and experience the various elements of composting, organic gardening and rain water catchment
Provide a telephone hotline to answer general inquiries about composting, organic gardening and soil conservation Page 12 of 147 Operate a social enterprise selling composting equipment and actively solicit membership to the society
Utilize volunteers in all aspects of the society’s activities Visit the Centre’s Demonstration Gardens Page 13 of 147 Promoting On-Site Composting
To build healthy soils and promote urban agriculture To support the regional ban on kitchen scraps to the landfill To change the view from ‘waste’ to ‘resource’ To encourage personal responsibility
Page 14 of 147 and build community resilience To mimic natural processes and encourage land stewardship To have fun in our natural environment! CRD Regional Kitchen Scraps Strategy
Capital Regional District (CRD) has restricted kitchen scraps to the landfill, started January 1st, 2015
Out of 13 municipalities and 3 electoral areas, only 6 will have residential collection programs
Private waste haulers offer food waste collection service to single family homes in regions without municipal waste collection, and multi-family dwellings and businesses (average cost $14 to $40/month) Page 15 of 147 By composting with a backyard composter or food waste digester, an average family of four can divert 500lbs of food waste, amounting to a greenhouse gas emissions savings equivalent to 5.74 MT of carbon dioxide annually! Assisting Municipalities with Sustainability Goals
Municipal Food Waste Digester and/or composter distribution events
Educational campaign alongside subsidized sale to promote on-site organic waste management
Encourage residents to contact us with composting and organic gardening questions Page 16 of 147 Visit our compost demonstration site and teaching gardens in Fernwood, or set up a compost demo area on municipal grounds Divert ALL food waste on-site How the Green Cone Works Page 17 of 147 Thank you for the opportunity to share our Centre’s services!
Marika Smith, Executive Director Victoria Compost Education Centre Page 18 of 147 [email protected] www.compost.bc.ca The Corporation of the District of
Central Saanich
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
For the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017
To: Ruth Malli File: 3060-20-17/17 Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services
From: Kyle McStravick Priority: Strategic Planner Operational
Date: August 25, 2017
Re: 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Permit
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council 1. authorize issuance of a Development Permit for the proposed exterior facade renovation of the existing shopping centre at 7103 West Saanich Road and new signage subject to: a. compliance with the attached plans; and, b. tenant fascia signage complying with the restrictions set out in the permit and the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw; and, 2. further the application to vary Section 43 of the Land Use Bylaw to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the subject property to a total of 105 spaces regardless of tenant occupancy (within the permitted uses of the C-1 zone) by directing staff to undertake the required notification for the Development Variance Permit.
BACKGROUND: Proposal: On the 17th of June, 2013, Council authorized the issuance of DP 3060-20-3/13 to permit a façade upgrade to the existing shopping centre located at 7103 West Saanich Road. The work authorized by that permit was not substantially commenced within 24 months of DP issuance, so that Permit has since expired. The owners now wish to undertake the work, so Finlayson
1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135
Page 19 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 25, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Permit
Bonet Architecture has applied on behalf of the owners, Trafalgar Square Holdings Co. Ltd., for a DP for proposed exterior upgrades to the Brentwood Crossing retail mall (previously called Trafalgar Square) and a Development Variance Permit (DVP) to maintain the existing number of parking spaces for new building uses.
The building renovation proposed is nearly the same as what was presented in the 2013 DP application. It is an exterior upgrade comprising of new wall cladding materials and architectural details. One of the more striking aspects of the proposal is the removal of the prominent rounded brick columns along the building arcade. It is intended that removal of the columns will allow the storefronts to be more visible from the street. The use of the property, site layout and the massing of the building (other than the columns) is not proposed to change as a result of this proposal (see plans attached).
There are some small differences between the current proposal and the previously approved plans. While the proposed site design at that time also included changes to vehicle access, circulation and parking layout, the owner now wishes to retain the existing parking lot entrance and exit arrangement, as well as the current landscaping and parking lot configuration.
While the off-street parking layout will remain as existing, the tenants and use of the spaces have changed over the years. A few restaurants have taken over previous retail or office spaces and require additional parking spaces by bylaw; therefore, the applicants are also requesting a variance to the required parking.
A different variance was issued also for the main building sign in 2013; specifically, a sign located above the roof line at the interior corner of the building saying "Brentwood Crossing". This sign is shown on the submitted DP drawings and will be part of the future envelope alterations. Two replacement freestanding signs were authorized by Council in November of 2015, reflecting the proposed theme and materials, and were subsequently installed on the property.
More recent applications with respect to the subject property include an approved development permit to authorize the installation of an internally illuminated channel letter sign for Subway on one of the brick columns (the column is proposed to be removed as part of this application), as well as a similar application from Pizza Hut which was rejected by Council.
Site and Surrounding Area: The subject property is located at the centre of Brentwood Bay village at the corner of West Saanich Road and Wallace Drive (7103 West Saanich Road). The site is designated Commercial I Mixed-use in the Official Community Plan and lies within the Urban Settlement Area boundary. The property is zoned Core Commercial (C- 1). Neighbouring properties to the north and west are also within the C-1 zone. Adjacent parcels to the south and east are residential (see attachments).
The existing commercial building was constructed on the property in 1977. The brick building is characterized by rounded brick columns along the building arcade. The columns create visual obstructions to the businesses and the removal of these will enhance visibility to and from the street. The building contains a mix of restaurant, office and service businesses.
DISCUSSION:
Page 20 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 25, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Permit
Staff Comments: The proposed changes to the building exterior should be considered in the context of the policies adopted in the Official Community Plan bylaw and the Brentwood Bay Village Commercial/Mixed Use Development Permit Area Guidelines.
OCP Policy and Guidelines excerpts: Policy 1: The areas of Brentwood Bay and Saanichton/Keating Ridge are to remain the primary retail and community service centres and fulfill the central commercial function of the community.
5.2.1. Economic planning and Marketing of Businesses. Objective: To support the promotion and use of local businesses
5.2.2 CommercialDevelopment Objective: To create vital, compact, and well-defined commercial and community service centres in Brentwood Bay and Saanichton by focusing commercial development in these areas.
11.6.5.5.11 Use quality construction and natural materials: • Natural materials such as stone, brick, and wood are desirable, as are colours that harmonize with the colours of the landscape.
The exterior upgrades being proposed are generally consistent with the Brentwood Bay design guidelines. Staff view the modern facade upgrades as enhancing the site and complimentary to surrounding uses. The facade improvements have a colour palette consisting of a mix of grey stonework and wood details. Wood beams and landscaped planters will replace the rounded brick columns.
Signage The design drawings show tenant signage for each business in the form of individual letter fascia signs, which is a sign type encouraged by the OCP in this area. However, the applicant has indicated that they do not wish the tenant signage to be included in this Development Permit, and that they would prefer for signage DPs to be secured subsequently by the individual tenants. This may result in a desire to reuse the existing back-lit sign cans, common in older strip mall developments, and remounting the signage on the new, modern cladding. The use of these signs is discouraged by the District's design guidelines, and staff believe the overall renovation of the building facade is an opportune time for Council to secure compliance with the design guidelines for signage.
Typically, as an aspect of "form and character" of a building, signage is included as part of a commercial form and character DP, and a master sign plan for the development (or redevelopment) would be required. Additionally, dealing with each individual tenant as a separate sign DP application would be an inefficient use of staff resources and Council time. For these reasons, and because the applicants have declined to include a master sign plan with this application, staff recommend that the DP for the overall project include written requirements and restrictions for signage against which staff may evaluate future tenant sign permit applications (rather than DP applications).
Page 21 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 25, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Permit
In keeping with the high quality public realm the District is creating in the Brentwood Bay Village, staff suggest that signage for the development be restricted to: • individual channel letter signs (internally illuminated or solid block letters) projecting in a three dimensional manner from the building or a backing plate, or • sandblasted/carved wood signs. And that permitted sign types should exclude: • flat plastic box signage This type of sign requirement is common at newer commercial developments in other municipalities, and is not overly burdensome nor does it pose an impediment to corporate branding for national companies such as Subway or Pizza Hut (which are tenants at this property). This is also in keeping with the Official Community Plan, which "encourages excellence in the design and construction of signs" specifically in the Brentwood Village Design Guidelines which call for "individual letters, hanging signs perpendicular to the building facade, or other creative solutions". Council may wish to note that, while several tenants at this location are currently using channel letter or other signage which would comply, there are a number of backlit flat plastic box signs on the building which could not be re-installed or reused after the proposed renovation. This means that some business owners would be faced with the cost of replacing their signage.
OCP Design Guidelines 11.6.5.5.13: • Creatively designed, constructed and lit signs can make a positive contribution to local character. Sign height should be in scale with neighbourhood buildings. • Free-standing pylon signs are discouraged. Signs should be located on the building facade • Suggested sign types include individual letters, hanging signs perpendicular to the building facade, or other creative solutions.
Parking Variance While the off-street parking layout is remaining as existing, the tenants and use of the spaces have changed over the years and a variance is requested to make the existing parking numbers permissible regardless of changing tenancies. The number of parking spaces provided on site currently is 105, while the applicant indicates that, per the terms of the Land Use Bylaw with respect to the current tenants in the building, a total of 112 are required (a deficit of 7 spaces). This number of bylaw-required spaces fluctuates over time as different tenants come and go (as the different uses permitted in the C-1 zone have different bylaw requirements). For example, a few restaurants have taken over previous retail or office spaces and require additional parking spaces by bylaw. The requested variance would settle the parking requirement for this development at what they currently have (105 spaces), regardless of what tenants happen to occupy the building at a given time. This will give the owners and business operators more certainty and save staff time in trying to track ongoing parking requirements.
Advisory Planning Commission: As the design submitted in support of the development permit application is the same as proposed and authorized in 2013, staff have provided the original comment from APC for Council consideration. The APC considered the application at their regular meeting ofMay15, 2013. After the Commission discussed the proposed improvements relating to the building renovations, the following unanimous resolution was carried:
Page 22 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 25, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 7103 West Saanich Road - Development and Development Variance Permit
That it be recommended to Council that the APC is supportive of the form, character, and materials of the proposed building renovations with respect to the Brentwood Bay design guidelines.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommend that Council consider authorizing the Development Permit for exterior facade renovations and alteration of the building at 7103 West Saanich Road, in compliance with the submitted plans and approving the use of certain types of signage. The original building permit for the exterior renovations has been renewed until January 2018, as permitted by the building bylaw, allowing construction to commence should the Development Permit be authorized.
It is also recommend that Council direct staff to undertake therequired notification for the Development Variance Permit, which would apply only to the minimum off-street parking requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle McStravick Planner
ATTACHMENTS: • Site Context Plan Endorsed by: • DP Application Chris Hall • DP Drawings Interim Manager of Current Planning • Examples of existing 'channel letter' signage in Brentwood Bay Village • Draft DVP Endorsed by: • Draft DP Ruth Malli Interim Manager, Planning and Building
Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer
Page 23 of 147 SITE CONTEXT PLAN 7103'West Saanich Rd
LECEND
SUBJECT SITE scale 1'250O
A1 r) RM-1 ¡/)
7130 CD-5
711 æ 7 100 711 Or O l-- LO Þ- |r) OJ O N lr) I Þr 0_ f-r 7 120 t 7 105 f-r Þr LLI \N I 7083 7086 ô 7108 V. 7079 103 7080 LLI I 7075 3 7076 a 2 7 706 7 7068 7085 -3 7 7060 7065 A1 'o 705 (o c[J O (o O CO + sl- |r) ú) (o (o F) lr) lr) t¿) 070 IO Ð 1 370
-2 OLUMBIA AVE 7052 49 1 353 to+4 z 7045 7048 P1 L BUREL , T.l *.\/ o41 70+0 _l t) O) ú) o_ ¡r) f.) ri- tr) 7 iì ¡r) Ð N) Ð z. 1321 7031 7034 7035 7036 F + O (/) 1284 128C 129 + \< 1262 ¡1 O 70 1;Z3ll,,,u È- 7032 a 7025 7022 m KNUTE WAY 7024 ôo 7019 :e 1263 1269 1275 1283 1 291 1 30ò "ll 7103 west soonich.dwg
Page 24 of 147 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH 1903 Mt Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B C VBM2A9 Phone (250) 544-4209 Fax (250) 652-4737 www centralsaanich ca Development I Development Variance Permit Application
Personal information is collected by The District of Central Saanich (DOCS) under the authority of the Community Charter/LocalGovemmenl Act and the DOCS bylaws, and is only used for purposes necessary and consistent with operation of DOCS’ services, programs andlor activities Disclosure of personal information by DOCS is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act. Ifyou have any questions about collection, use or disclosure of personal information by DOCS, please contact: the DOCSFOI Head, 1903 Mt Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, BC VBM2A9 250-652-4444 XDevelopmentPermit El Development Variance Permit El Development 8. Development Variance Permit
Address Lon ng Pr°.ect Info I 7103 WEST SAANICHROAD, BRENTWOODBAY, BC C1 LO SSCIIOH Range I"IaI'| I"ILI I'0|IO A VIP11194 005134021 302 31-0051 -000
Name °"‘"‘°' TRAFALGAFISQUARE HOLDINGS COMPANY LTS , c/o HUGH + MACKINNONREALTY LTD #/Street City I-’0S(EI Code 14007 16TH AVENUE SURRY BC V4A1P9 ieiepncne Fax email 604-531-1909 604-531-4624 BRUCE@HUGHMCK|NNON COM
Applicant Name BUSINESS Licence (If n0t OWN‘-‘TI FINALYSONBONET ARCHITECTURE LTD #lStreet City Postal Code #4-7855 EAST SAANICHROAD SAANICHTON, BC V8M 2B4 Telephone Fax email 250-656-2224 KYLE@F|NLAYSONBONET.CA
Project Details
Description of existing use/development: EXISTINGCOMMERCIALSPACEI FIETAIL,PERSONAL SERVICES, BANK,AND FAST
Description of proposal: RENOVATION TO EXISTINGEXTERIOR FACADE
-3 Reasons for requested variance (if applicable)
(use an additional page if necessary) Required Documentation & Plans (2 fu//-size set of plans + 1-11x17 reduced set)
El Current Certi?cate of Title — within the past 30 days El Site Pro?le (Contaminated Sites Regulation) as myaglnl la npply forum abrammmperm» mssuaaz/understand a El Survey Certificate (BCLS) of all stnictures & watercourses nameraga/dmg mispannn mube placed on maproperty We El Site Plan to scale, showing all structures, setbacks, access, mupp||na2Ihhwy?tduu?1I\dlilonnuwn|umi?IdIIm:LomIa. adjacent building separation, watercourses, site contours, water supply, storm and sewage disposal, etc. El Landscape Plan, including landscape speci?cations, screening, Applicant Date fencing, lighting, etc. Cl Building Floor Plans and Elevations (identifying speci?c ?nishes) El Calculations for site area, coverage, bldg. area, ?oor space ratio. Owner(required if not applicant) Date bldg. height, grade, and parking stalls El Signage Details (ifapplicable).
Fees
Minoris de?ned as any improvements costing $30,000 or less in value,’ Majcris de?ned as any improvements costing more than $30,000. Development Permit D Minorwithout Variances $ 300 TOTAL FEES s I0 CI Minor with Variances $ 800 Major without Variances $1000 Dale CI Major with Variances $1500
”‘"""°’ El Site Pro?le $ so
’ ' Developmentvariance Permit $ 500 Z0 El Variance Noti?cation Sign $ 80 March zmu r7i,o00éi5
Page 25 of 147 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH 1903 Ml. Newton Cross Road, Saanlchlon. B.C. VBM2A9 Phone (250) 544-4209 Fax (250) 652-4737 www.canlra|saan|ch.ca Development I Development Variance Permit Application
lzl Development Permit El Development Varlance Permit C! Development 8. Development Varlance Permit
ma... . Pram:Inva mu». 7m: WESTSAANICHFIOAD BRENTWOODBAY, ac C-1
— - ' LOI section RBDQD mu nu ru. A vnP H154 005134021 soza1-0051-000
>4... Owner TRAFALGAR SQUARE HOLDINGSCOMPANYLTD.Clo HUGH+ McKINNONREALTYLTD. 15:.-.1 cw Mu: mu 14007 16TH AVENUE. SURRY.BC V4A1P9 Telephone I'll] cmal 604-531-1909 604-531-4624 [email protected]
Applicant Name Buslnass Ucence (I! linknwnor) pg,-5;...“ Clly Postal Coda
Telepnuna PBX
Pirfolec
Descrlpllon of axlsllng use/development:
Descriptionof proposal:
Reasons for requested variance (Ifapplicable):
(use an addlllanalpaga lfnscassary)
_ . / §dniehi‘ailIéan}a;TiéI'an§ . V .e Aiit?sirizaitio? (2 fuil—slzeset ofplans + 1—11x17reduced set) I, the owner of the above property, hereby authorize and appoint D Survey Certificate (BCLS)of all structures, watercourses, etc. FINLAYSONBONETARCHITECTURE- KYLESHICK El Site Plan to scale, showing all structures, setbacks, access, as my agent to apply for and ablaln this pemiil. IfIssued, adjacent building I understand a separation,watercourses, slle contours, water noticeregarding thispermit willbe placed on the property title. supply, storm and sewage disposal, etc. The applicant hereby declare: that all informationsubmitted is true 5 oorrect. Landscape Plan, Includinglandscape speci?cations, screening. fences.lighting,etc. TFIAFALGARSQUARE HOLDINGSLTD. MAY.O42017 Floor Plans and Elevations Bulldln (identifyingspeci?c ?nishes). Dale calculations for site area, coverage, bldg. area, floor space rallo, bldg. height, grade, and parking stalls. Signage Details (Ifapplicable).
Anyporsonallnfonnallon p_mv/idsdlnthisapplicationis oolledsdIorllvapurposeofadrnlnlsle?ngthe Ismunlclpal?yundvrpart26 olthe mmMa and undsrliuzaufhot?yofthose enactments Quas?ons abouttheoolacdonolllleinlnrma FreedomofInfonnalionOliloor.
Mlnarlsdefinedas any Impmvsmenls costing £30,000 or less Invalue: Ma/‘artsde?ned as any improvementscosting more than 330,000. Office Use El slle Prollle S 50 Cl Development Varlance Permit $ 500 TOTAL FEES El Variance Notl?callon Sign S 80
Development Permits N-cum By om. MlnorwllhoulVariances $ 300 MlnorwilhVariances 3 800 wuumn. Numbu MajorwithoutVariances $1000 MajorwilhVariances EJEIUU Jnnuuy am
Page 26 of 147 R IR MENT BRENTW D R ING BUILDING ODEINF RMATI N BRENTWOOD CROSSING RENOVATIONPFIO\LECTDATA BRENT
- GROUP EAND GROUP D MAJOR OCCUPANCIES OWNER E?QJ§§T DATA
CIVIC ADDRESS - 7103 WEST SAANICH ROAD. BRENTWOOD BAY, - 3 66 GROUP UP TO STOREVS 8. 3 2 2 60 GROUP D UP TO 2 STOREYS BUILDING DESIGNATION TRAFALGAR SQUARE HOLDINGCOMPANV LTD 2 2 E 2 BC COMUBSTIBLE OR NONCOMUEISITLE CONSTRUCTION PERMITTED CIO HUGH & MACKINNONREALTY LTD CRU 1 - Empourlum 154 5m2 @1peI10m2 + 3Bm2 @1pe{ 22m2 1718 45 MINUTE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING FOR FLOOR ASSEMBLIES (IF OF COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION) 14007 16TH AVENUE LEGAL ADDRESS - FACING 2 STREETS (1500m2 BUILDING AREA MAXIMUM) SURRY, BC V-1A1P9 CRU 2- Canada Post 91 54m2 @ 1 per 20m2 458 EXISTING BUILDING IS DIVIDEDINTO 3 SEPARATE BUILDINGS WITH EXISTING 4 HR CONCRETE MASONRY P-604 5311909IF-6045314624 USE — RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICES. BANK, FAST FOOD
UNIT FIREWALLS CONTACT » BRUCE ROBINSON, PRESIDENT CRU 3 - BC Liquor 360 72m2 @ 1 per 22m2 16 40 EXISTING ZONING - C-1 BUILDING 1 = 76515m2 BUILDING 2: B21 5-1m2 EIUILDING3 = 378 3m2 (REFER TO A1 02) PROPOSED ZONING -C-1 CRU 45 - Camivore 155 Bm2 @ 1 per 22m2 645
USED TO MINIMUM RESISTANCE LEVELS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION LOT AREA - 5,152 QSM2 TABLE 10 21 1 B DETERMINE THERMAL ECJIIIEQI CFIU8- Puget Used Books 613Im2 @ 1 per 22m2 422 - RSI 5 3 (R30) FOR NEW FLAT ROOF OVER HABITABLESPACE FLOOR AREA RATIO - 0 24 1 - RSI 2 3 (R20) FOR NEW WOOD FRAMED WALLS FINLAVSON BONETARCHITECTURE CRU 7 - Vacant 92 9m2 @ 1 pe! 20rn2 (4 65 spaces) 465 #4-7855 EAST SAANICH ROAD EXISTING BUILDING AREA& GROSS FLOOR AREA - 1.932 72M2 SAANICHTON.BC VBM2B4 PROPOSED BUILDING AREA5 GROSS FLOOR AREA 1964 98M2 CRU B - Inland Tax 6131m2 @1peI20m2 307 P—2506562224IF-2506562279 - @ 613 EXISTING SITE COVERAGE - 23 7% CFIUB Subway 6131m2 1 per 10m2I1 pefa seals LIST OF ARQHI EQTURALDRAWINGS EMAIL- kyIe@?n|aysonbone1 ca I PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE - 24% CRU 10 - PIZI Hut 23 23m2 @ 1 per 2Dm2 1 16 - PROJECT CONTACT KYLESHICK. PROJECT MANAGER SETBACKS - ALLSETBACKS ARE EXISTING A0 00 COVER SHEET CFIU11 - Vlcant 92 9m2 @ I per 2Drn2 (4 65 spaces) 465 A1 00 SITE PLAN L AVERAGE GRADE - T.B D A2 00 OVERALL PLANS CRU 12- Sulhl 46 45m2 @ 1 per 10m2 /1 Def 3 seals (16 seals) 500 HEIGHT - HEIGHT IS EXISTING PROPOSED RENOVATION DOES A3 00 ELEVATIONS HEROLD ENGINEERING LTD NOT INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT CHU13 - Island Savlnga 16 59 A3 01 ELEVATIONS 2988 JUTLAND RD VICTORIA, BC VBT5K2 Tolal Purklng Stills Req'd 92 07 P - 250 590 4375 93 Required
PROJECT CONTACT - ULMEFI, P.ENG KATE 105 Stella Exlsllng
A_=
ARTISTICCONCEPTION ARTISTIC CONCEPTION Page 27 of 147 Brentwood Crossing Renovation D EGEWE Issued for Development Permit 17JULY2 -3 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich Plannin Dapanmenl A R H I T E C T U EXISTING LOADING ACCESS
EXISTING EXIT E { J WALLACEDRIVE n::\ II :4 I: j 7 6 5 4 3 2 11 109 13 I2 Q 5:3 ????i I CZ: 15 5:: 17 ‘B Emsnue ‘:3 19 I8 ENTRANCE 21 20 O 22 % ‘% 1 1 ‘:3 24 2 5:: 26 25 '28 27 29 V- to ‘R es 67 65 0 6 0,, 7‘ 7 9 é <° ¢ x? CRU #1 ' 75 9 W EMPORIUM 75 ¢ ‘° 77 ¢ 78 ¢ +/-1663 I—‘r2 go 79 a (154.5.o M2) 82 81 5 é 35 86 88 87 Bsf?jk?‘ 8 /I C J ‘O, I: Ti) :1 98 99 101 Lg’ g 96 97 ; 3,3y ?ff 92 93 9): 9%«V RU#2- go 91 M )5; POST OFFICE 39 - E CRU #11 +/-1493 FT2 4 SUSHI to 138.7 M2) 6‘ +/-500 "2 5 (46.45 <3 g “ 43 44 45 46 48 49 so 51 52 53 54 55
FINL YSON §F(oCH|$ET (:T\JiE
fl'Ia|.||'IO I EYSOH He C8
_ #1o- RU#9- CRU #a- u#7- ORU #e- ORU #5- CRu#4- cRU#3- L%‘(‘%EG CHM‘? PIZZA SUBWAY ISLAND DOLLAR BOOK CARNIVOREM LIQUOR STORE ‘§L§g‘7%§$;"NG3 1000 HUT +/-1000 sTORE STORE +/-2000 I—‘r2 +/-4952 Fr2 000 FT2 — — ooo +/-1000 +/-1ooo (185.8 M2) (460.06 M2) T351- 85 M2) FT2 (92.9oM2) FT2 FT2 FT2 (92.9M2) 9oM2) (92.9oM2) (92.9oM2)
I7JULY2B RE-ISSLED DEVELOPBENT PERMIT ISAUGIII REVISED —l DEVELOPMENTPERMIT - ——- ——- T i . j . ——_ .. .. . 22NO\/I3 ______, umovta TENDER -- Rev Date Descviplion —' —' """"""" ...... Shocked KDS Jmwn KDS/FIJCIAV Beale 1I16"=1'-0'
JULY28, 2017
/N SITE PLAN "“'“"€a“ii‘éurwooo 1_o0 Sca|e:1/16"=1'-0" CROSSING RENOVATIONS Page 28 of 147 ...... SITE PLAN
MW A1.00 Propel No
Plannin Deartment 12'-0‘
LINEOF STEEL STRUCTURE ABOVE ‘ PAINTED
mu-mum. CONCRETE
FLANTEFI
EXISTING FASCIA ABOVE
STOVE MASONRV VENEER
2~_0- STEEL STRUCTURE — PAINTED
EXISTING SIDEWALK RAM’
STOREFRONT
PLANTER PLAN CRU#1- L:a,v;1'c>_s,c1::xOI:E EMPORIUM ’ ' +F1663 FT? (154.5.0 M2)
CRU#2— POST OFFICE 56 U #11 - +L1493 FT? 38.7 M2) +S/USHIFT-500 2 «3%- (46.45 M2) 5'3? [I4 - 7855 East Saanlch Rd Saankzhtan VEM2B4
Phone: 250-656-2224 emai|:Fi?1)I(o2rI2b7:v1et lgggéfff LEEEEEE LEEEEEE
3RU#10 CRU#9- CRU#8- CRU#7- CRU#6- CRU#5- #4 CRU#3- CRU#12 mum ammo VACANT PIZZA SUBWAY ISLAND DOLLAR BOOK E M LIQUOR STORE nmpmm um-qr ISLANDS'A\/INGS +/-1000 HUT +/-1000 TAX STORE STORE FT? +/-4952 I-‘T2 g,=E~,,UE~g;;;,,;‘E=,; I 3572 |__|.2 -T°I,§gRW FT? +/-1000 FT2 +/-1000 +/-1000 +/-1000 (185.8 M?) (460.06 M2) 22NovIa Buiding pm +351I - 85 M2I (92.9M2) I-‘T2 (92.9oM2) FT2 Frz FT? (929M2) (9Z90M2)(9290M2)(9Z90M2) Hw mm mwwm Checked KDS Dmwn KDSIRJCIAV Scale 1/16"=1'—O"
JULY28,2017 ’””“ c”:s;:.a2 RENOVAHONS° "?¥?$?F $9‘ Page 29 of 147 Jfswlng me
« + PLANTER PLAN mm M A2.00 Project No 12866 Planm - Dearlmem
|||> {(2)QQLQIJBSQHEDULE mE wumw apumumxm D5 1 - STONE MASONRY VENEER 2 — FIBRECEAENT PANELSIDING
3 » PREFINISHED METALFLASHING II - TONGUE ANDGROOVE CEDAR SIDING WICLEAR SEALER 5 - EXISTING WOOD SIDING RE-PAINTED 6 - PERFORATED ALUMINUMPANEL 7 - PAINTEDSTEEL COLUMNS 8 - BACKLITSIGNAGE ON PERORATED ALUMINUMPANEL 9 - ACRVLIC STUCCO FINISH I0 - ALUMINUMCURTAIN WALLGLAZING 11 - EXISTING STOREFRONT GLAZING FEW PAINTON FRAIIES I2 - EXISTING BRICK CLADDING ~ NEW PAINT I3 - EASV TRIMREVEAL
I4 » ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE
I5 » BUILT-UP CEDAR FASCIA - CLEAR SEALER I6 - STEELSTRUCTURE - PAINTED
:23F‘ I 3‘,. <,A~a‘ up BF
. ,‘ .
‘.4 5 I . ‘ jun ’, V _.A
2 _ n [TI] FINLAYSON | BONET
#4 - 7855 East Saanich Rd Saanichlon VBM284 Phone: 250-656-2224 Fax 250-656-2279 wssvzmr/mow email: inIo@finlaysonbonet ca
|%uvas~’a’a»; I7JuLv28 HI:-ISSUEU x DEVELOPBENT PERMIT .— INDIVIDUALMETALLETTERING ISAUGI4 HEVISED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Y 45]-=..om.. METAL PANEL ‘YENTAN? ()1 NOV13 TENDER ;n,; u [email protected]_ MASONRV VENEER Rev DBIS DS&fI|)II0l1 °"°°"°“ KDS ‘TENTANI INDIVIDUALIVETALLETFERING _
* * Drawn KDS/RJCIAV METALPANEL , Ersnlomrzn Scale 1/16" = 1'-0" 4'-s- TENTANT .. JULY 28, 2017 2-0' , _ 4:1’ r‘lapel Name BFIENTWOOD ;TENTANT CROSSING _u4u RENOVATIONS 7108 WEST SAANICH ROAD. :InI=m-wnnn RAV an Jvawlng Inle
Page 30 of 147 » aw . éi?? '< ‘ —m.. “P NIAsoNHV VENEEH < mm: P ROPOSED ELEVATIONS INDIVIDUALBETALLETTERING 6 PERFORATED METALPANEL
DmnngNn
PM‘ No
- - 12865 m WALLACEDRIVE SIGNAGE PLAN WALLACE SIGNAGE HEVAYIDN Scale: 1/2" = 1‘-()'‘ DRE A390 ‘ I2-O" mUom> NEW METALFACED POINT OF ROTATION IN INDIVIDUALLEITERING WITH BUILDING BACK LITLED ILLUMINATION CURB ON ROOFING COLOURSCHEDULE MATERIAL HED LE
: 25'~D' A - ROCKPORT GRAY.BENJAMIN MOORE HC 105 STONE MASONRYVENEER B - RUSTY NAIL,BENJAMIN MOORECC 390 FIBRE CEMENT PANEL SIDING C - GINGER ROOT.BENJAMIN MOORE CC 274 PREFINISHEDMETALFLASHING D - ONYX,BENJAMIN MOORE 2133-10 TONGUEAND GROOVE CEDAR SIDINGW/CLEAR SEALER E -ALASKAN HUSKY, BENJAMINMOORE 1479 EXISTINGWOODSIDINGRE-PAINTED PERFORATEDALUMINUMPANEL 1 PAINTEDSTEEL COLUMNS NTW DCFIOSSING3 BACKLITSIGNAGEON PERORATED ALUMINUMPANEL ACRYLICSTUCCO FINISH - ALUMINUMCURTAINWALLGLAZING i_BR - EXISTING STOREFRONT GLAZING NEW PAINTON FRAMES - EXISTINGBRICKCLADDING- NEW PAINT - EASYTRIM REVEAL x - ARCHITECTURALCONCRETE - BUILT-UPCEDAR FASCIA - CLEAR SEALER ( E)s4eune2nErM|. - STEELSTRUCTURE - PAINTED
STRUCTURE PAINTED
{@ExIsTINsMASONRYPAINTED CEDAR SCREEN WITHCLEAR SEALER BUILTUP CEDAR FASCIA WITHCLEAR SEALER
@:sTEELSTRUCTURE PAINTED CEDAR SCREEN WITHCLEAR SEALER @ExIsTINeMASONRY PAINTED
I STONE MASONRY VENEER
2 FIBRE CEMENT PANELSIDING m PARTIAL WEST 2 FIBRECEMENT PANELSIDING W Scale: 1I4" = 1'-U"
FINLAYSON BONET
#4 - 7855 EaE1Saanich Rd BUILT UP CEDAR FASCIA Saanichtcm VEM 2B4
(T_J)ExIs11NeMASONRY PAINTED Phone: 250-656-2224 Fax 250-656-2279 \Ia STEEL STRUCTURE PAINTED ® email: InIo@IIrIIaysonbonet ca
BC LIQUORSTOR E CEDAR SCREEN WITHCLEAR SEALER
/E‘PAINTED \B'R/ICK
I7JULv2ts Ht:-ISSUED DEVELOPMENTPERMTT I5AU(iI4 REVISED m WEST ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Scale: 1/5' =1‘-0" 22NOVl3 Biidtng Pevmil W OINOVIS REV Dale Desclipiion Checked KDS Drawn KDSIRJCIAV Scale 1/16“ =1‘-0"
Dal8 EXISTING IMDODSIDINGPAINTED JULY 28, 2017 STONE MASONRYVENEER I-In 'EI° PAINTED sIENTwooDcnossme SIGNAGE SIGNAGE RENOVATIONS CEDAR SCREEN WITHCLEAR SEALER SIGNAGE H08 WEST SAANICHFIOAD. n|:=MTwrv\n Ianv an umvmg we Page 31 of 147 @PAINTEDBEHINDSCREEN ON EXISTING ERICK PROPOSED @E?V/E ELEVATIONS AUG-3 A3.01 '“"’°‘"° 12866 § Distri ct
aa::§:a??T?T??7T
Page 32 of 147 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich
DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT
No. DVP 3090-20-13/17 “7103 WEST SAANICH ROAD”
TO: TRAFALGAR SQUARE HOLDING CO LTD 14007 16 AVE SURREY BC V4A 1P9
(herein called "the Owner")
1. This Development Variance Permit is issued subject to compliance with the provisions of the Land Use Bylaw and all other applicable Bylaws of the Municipality, except as specifically varied by this Permit as follows:
Land Use Bylaw #1309, Section 43 Required Off-Street Parking is varied to permit 105 vehicle parking spaces irrespective of the mix of uses permitted in the C1 zone.
2. This Development Variance Permit applies to the lands known and described as follows:
Parcel Identifier: PID # 005134021 LOT A, SECTION 11, RANGE 1 EAST & 1 WEST, SOUTH SAANICH DISTRICT PLAN VIP 11194 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 37676
(herein called "the Lands")
3. This permit shall only apply to the current configuration and footprint of buildings as depicted on the attached Site Plan A1.00 dated Aug 3 2017.
4. The terms and conditions contained in this Permit shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the owner, their executors, heirs or administrators, successors and assigns as the case may be, or their successors, in title to the land.
5.. This Permit is not a Building Permit.
Page 33 of 147 Development Variance Permit No. 3090-20-13/17 (DVP) 7103 West Saanich Road – “Brentwood Crossing” Page 2
Page 34 of 147 Development Variance Permit No. 3090-20-13/17 (DVP) 7103 West Saanich Road – “Brentwood Crossing” Page 3
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED AND ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ON .
APPROVED AND AGREED TO BY THE OWNER:
Signed in the presence of:
Witness Trafalgar Square Holding Co Ltd.
Address of Witness Date
______Occupation
Witness
Date Address of Witness
______Occupation
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH Ryan Windsor, Mayor
Liz Cornwell, Corporate Officer
SIGNED THIS DAY OF , 201__.
Page 35 of 147 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 3060-20-17/17 7103 WEST SAANICH RD “BRENTWOOD CROSSING”
TO: TRAFALGAR SQUARE HOLDING CO LTD 14007 16 AVE SURREY BC V4A 1P9
(HEREIN CALLED "THE OWNER")
This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the applicable Bylaws of the municipality.
This Development Permit applies to the lands known and described as:
PARCEL IDENTIFIER: PID 005-134-021 LOT A, SECTION 11, RANGE 1 EAST & 1 WEST, SOUTH SAANICH DISTRICT PLAN VIP 11194 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 37676
(HEREIN CALLED "THE LANDS")
1. This Development Permit authorizes façade changes to the existing development in accordance with plans, specifications and drawings attached as Appendix A, excepting details respecting façade signage.
2. All façade signage shall be: either externally illuminated sandblasted or carved wood, internally illuminated metal channel letters, or of a composite type illuminated only by exposed tubular neon or LED lights. Further, the use of internally illuminated fluorescent box signage is not permitted.
Page 36 of 147 Page 2 DP No. 3060-20-17/17 7103 WEST SAANICH RD - DP for Exterior Renovation
3. Minor variations to the development (and not to required or varied Bylaw requirements), may be permitted by the Director of Planning and Building Services.
4. The owner shall substantially commence construction within 24 months from the date of issuance of this Permit, in default of which the Permit shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.
5. The terms and conditions contained in this Permit shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the owner, their executors, heirs or administrators, successors and assigns as the case may be or their successors in title to the land.
6. This is not a Building Permit or a Sign Permit. Building and Sign permits are required prior to the respective construction or installation.
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED AND ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ON .
Signed in the presence of:
Witness TRAFALGAR SQUARE HOLDING CO LTD
Address of Witness Date
______Occupation
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH
Ryan Windsor, Mayor
Page 37 of 147 Page 3 DP No. 3060-20-17/17 7103 WEST SAANICH RD - DP for Exterior Renovation
Liz Cornwell, Corporate Officer
SIGNED THIS DAY OF , 201 .
Page 38 of 147 APPENDIX “A” DP # 3060-20-17/17 005-134-021 7103 WEST SAANICH RD
Attachments:
Page 39 of 147 The Corporation of the District of
Central Saanich
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
For the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017
To: Ruth Malli File: 3060-20-14/17 Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services
From: Kristina DeMedeiros Priority: Strategic Building Inspector Operational
Date: August 29, 2017
Re: 483 Dunmora Court - Marine Shoreline Development Permit
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council authorize issuance of a Marine Shoreline Development Permit for the proposed foreshore trail at 483 Dunmora Court subject to: 1. compliance with the submitted drawings (dated June 7, 2017) with the cottage parking eliminated; 2. compliance with all recommendations contained within the Shoreline Environmental Assessment and Mitigation report by Corvidae Environmental Consulting Inc, including the Erosion and Sediment Control Mitigations; and, 3. if necessary for tree removal, apply for and obtain required permits and submit a replanting plan at a 3:1 ratio.
BACKGROUND: Proposal Rus Collins, of Zebra Design, has applied on behalf of the property owner, Stephen and Jona Hilton-Halkinrud, of 483 Dunmora Court for a Marine Shoreline Development Permit. The proposal is to create a 2.44m (8') wide gravel trail to provide access to existing structures at the shoreline, on the west portion of the property, as shown on the attached plan. A small portion of this trail would be located in the Development Permit area, which extends 15m (49') inland from the natural boundary of the sea.
1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135
Page 40 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 29, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 483 Dunmora Court - Marine Shoreline Development Permit
Site and Surrounding Area The subject property is 1.0 ha (2.5 acre) sloping parcel located on the western end of the Dunmora Court nine lot subdivision, which was registered in 2011. This strata lot (no. 6) is located north of the West View Road right of way and on the north edge of Thomson Cove. All of the properties in this neighbourhood are zoned Rural Estate (Water) RE-3 (see attached). The Official Community Plan designates the shoreline in this area as 'rocky shore', according to OCP map 4.
DISCUSSION: Prior to the creation of this Dunmora subdivision, the property owner applied for a Development Permit (DP), as well as a Development Variance Permit (DVP), to construct a walkway and dock at 483 Dunmora Court (previously addressed as 8100 McPhail Road). At the December 6, 2010, Council meeting, the permits for the foreshore construction were authorized, with the following conditions: a) That vegetation removal (other than removal of invasive species) be minimized on the upland property; b) That the owner adhere to the Best Management Practices specified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); and c) That the owner retain the biologist to monitor the construction and provide written confirmation to the District of adherence to the DFO Best Management Practices and other applicable regulations.
Additionally, the applicant confirmed with Council that he had met with representatives of the Tsartlip First Nation, inspected the property and no archaeological sites had been identified. The wooded dock platform was subsequently completed under building permit in 2011, along with the access ramp and dock, as per the DP.
Staff Comments During the subdivision process to create the nine parcels on Dunmora Court, consideration was given to the future use of this property by granting permission to create an access from the 'building envelope' down to the foreshore, by way of a registered covenant (see attached). Specifically, the covenant states that "the Owner shall not construct, build, erect or expand any building or structure on the Lands except within a Building Envelope, other than... on Lot 6, an access system running from the Building Envelope to the Saanich Inlet foreshore". While the plans identify the trail, it also shows an area labeled as "cottage parking", which is outside the designated building envelope. Staff have advised the applicant that this parking area would not be permitted in this location, as per the registered covenant.
There is a relatively small portion of the trail in the foreshore, compared to both the 15m shoreline DP setback and the width of the property. OCP Section 11.2.8. outlines the applicable guidelines for "rocky shores", including the following:
Rocky shores consist primarily of rock platform, and may include steep cliffs or shelves overlain with beach veneer of boulders, gravel or rubble. While shore protection
Page 41 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 29, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 483 Dunmora Court - Marine Shoreline Development Permit
measures are generally not required on rocky shores as the bedrock provides adequate protection from erosion the following guidelines apply:
Retain or restore an average 15m (with 5m minimum) wide shoreline zone (i.e. shoreline vegetation) over a minimum 50% of shore length, with recognition that the type and extent of vegetation on rocky shores may be less than that found on beach or stream delta shores.
The Official Community Plan (OCP) Marine Shoreline Development Permit Area guidelines Section 11.2.9 Construction Practices describes the need for erosion control and monitoring, and to meet these requirements, the applicant has provided a biologist's environmental assessment for the proposed trail construction. Both Staff and Cordvidae Environmental Consulting Inc. suggest that monitoring of construction by the biologist should be required to ensure site disturbance is minimized.
The biologist's report also indicates that the new trail has been designed to avoid trees; however, there is a possibility that a small oak tree could be impacted. If it becomes necessary to remove the tree to create a safe access trail, a protected tree cutting permit may be required. It is recommended that Council require a 3:1 ratio of replanting trees for those removed, as permitted by Section 13 in the Tree Protection Bylaw.
CONCLUSION: Based on the submitted report by the project biologist, the proposed work will have minimum impact on the shoreline area. Staff recommend issuance of the Development Permit subject to compliance with the biologist's recommendations.
Kristina Demedeiros, RBO Building Inspector
ATTACHMENTS: • Site Context Plan Endorsed by: • Application Materials Chris Hall • Portion of Covenant (2011) Interim Manager of Current Planning
Endorsed by: Ruth Malli Interim Manager, Planning and Building
Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer
Page 42 of 147 To: Ruth Malli, Interim Manager of Planning and Building Services August 29, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: 483 Dunmora Court - Marine Shoreline Development Permit
Page 43 of 147 SITE CONTEXT PLAN 483 Dunmora Crt
LEC€ND
SUBJECT SITE ecale 15OOO
8230 8203 RE-A 422+
8201
8r 50
8r 85
81 65
8l 00 81 55 486
488 OIJNL4RA cʡ
81 447 480 489 o 491 -U 485 493 - r-
RD W-1-BFI 8080 ao14 8070 \
W1
680 700
480 500 739 508 536 540 568 6t4 630
507 o 515 523 535 543 601 605 617 643 651 ts @ A1 l*
Page 44 of 147 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH 1903 Mt. Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. VBM 249 Phone (250) 544-4209 Fax (250) 652-4737 www.centralsaanich.ca Development / Development Variance Permit Application
{r.u"ror ent Perm¡t tr Development Variance Permit tr Development & Development Variance Permit
F;,öi#diTii$ 3 -7 Range Folìo G 3 4-(?/g "â .o-utifË; AJ'
Applicant (if nb! owner) r-å City 95 Fax ema¡l 2ço 76Ó >/ / ç, nlaêæþra¿ra¿/P. a
.pföjë_¿f oetäiiö
Description of existing use/development: stD + çnuÐ/a
Description of proposal lÊU êExuao Tr¿âlL Ta Wfraß ÞP Faz 7rZÐl¿ tr'¿THtt/ /-(*t þ,*tztne S4e%< á4*"AL r4æss 7/zê/L PãL,øzlÞD ,9y
Reasons for requested variance (if applicable): lH{=*r-5{tvtË U L] JUN - 9 2OI7 V)
I ne Çorporation of the Distrid of Central Saanich ttl^--i^- ñ^--Á---a
(2 full-size set of plans + 1-11x17 reduced set) I, the owner of the above propefty, hereby authorize and appoint tr Survey Gertificate (BCLS) ofall structures, watercourses, etc. L6TTãþ Plan to scale, showing all fæ fS¡t" structures, setbacks, access, as my agent to apply for and obtain this permit. lf issued, I understand a adjacent building separation, watercourses, site contours, water th¡s perm¡t w¡ll be placed on the propefty title. supply, storm and sewage disposal, etc. TIE declares that all information submitted is true & correct tr Landscape Plan, including landscape specifications, screening, fences, lighting, etc. *)/A, (,/Pt/6 , Build¡ng Floor Plans and Elevat¡ons (ident¡fying 7 '/7 N/Aa specifìc finishes). Date B Calculat¡ons for site area, coverage, bldg. area, floor space rat¡o, bldg. height, grade, and parkingsÍalts.-f¿ì2 OP ffiØ B S¡gnage Details (if applicable). þ///^ . Owner (required ¡f not applicant) Dáe
Læal GovemnentAct,andundertheauthotityoftlþseenaclnenfsQuesûbnsabouttheællecùonoftheinformationmaybedirúedtotheFreedomoflnfomalionOfficer.
M¡nor ¡s deî¡ned as any ¡mprcvements costing $30,000 or /ess ,n yalue; Major is deñned as any improvements cost¡ng more than 930,000 Office Use Develop2rént Permit þ/ Minor without Variances $ 3OO TOTAL FEES $ O Minor with Variances $ 800 tuD O Major without Variances $1000 Received By Date O Major with Variances $1500 4 t'l Application/File D Site Profile $50 w
Development Variance Perm¡t $ 500 O Variance Notif¡cation S¡gn $80 SC6O-"C-l+ I
7 t-oooSqt
Page 45 of 147 PROJÊCT OATA
tÊê^L 9ÊSc"fPffoN 9TRATA LOf b,sECffOII 3. RANéE 3 NEgT, gOUTH gMNI¿H DfsfRIóT, sfRAfA PLAN VI5]122
MUNI¿IPAL AP9RE95 4ø3 W\VORA COURÍ
ZONINé KEY PLAN RE.3 A LOT ÆEA scAL* 15oo õ6fi4 ¡to,ostz n'¡ K5/ 2 4ø5 a = 1þ ha eER ailøONIsÍoN REA OF ACOÊ93 ?AfH AffHIN MARINE SHORELINE DEVELOPMENf PERMIT ZONE:
43O 5F GOñ'z)
IEêÉND EGEIVE é
.. ii - I 2017 ! )¡ JUN TRAIL I1ITHTT I5N MARINE ,t 6EÍ9A¿K PP AREA The GorPotation of the Distr¡ct of Central Saanlch ffi53 T ?ARKfNê ovfSf9E oF ufL9fNG eNvELo?e REFÊ? @V ÉNANÍ *F844b215
APPROVE' DRIVENÀY BY PREVIOUg PERMIf
ata¿|a,1 , ¿r .t ,ii' /ra. a
'"9 ^, ^,8 ô.c
{"" *"
ou) '? ,r' I ":9 Pe"
,P o.r %L_ tu
\ "'*oo s\ + ZEBRADESIGN \ @ \ F
00 nl E t15 ÍRAIL HEAD ,\ 1 q NE,4 ê ÏRAIL TO DrawnBy: P lanamolo Date: 4e., ACCE59 ?ERI4TTTED gY JUNE't,2011 *Fe44ø215 |oq. o* covENANT DOC. kate: AgNOTÉD ,I4¿ Projæt: .f DEVELOPMENT ugft[é RøêH 5fotE51Ëre +9 ò E PERMIT FOR TRAIL
Page 46 of 147 o "{l 4b3 DUNI4ORA @URT îe ¿ENÍRAL gAANICH B¿. ¡t N Iitle: 3ITE PLAN AND PROJECT DA'IA ô lil @ þ¿r d .|'f Revision: Sheel Saanioh lnleL +9 ^'4 a ..P 1ÍTE PLAN /^ V\r:*1. \/îættr hl| \ttq.v -tzfi û ,, ,û 9K-1 J +9,+l Shoreline Environmental Assessment and Mitigations for a Trail Development in the Marine Shoreline Development Permit Area, 483 Dunmora Court, Central Saanich, BC EGEilVE Professional envi ronmenta I services. JUN - I Zltl The
Submitted by C RVIDAE ENVIRONMENTAI CONSU TTING INC. www.corvidaeenv.com 250-415-8s53 [email protected] 6526 Water St, Sooke, V9Z 0X1
Submitted to:
Kyle McStravick, Planner District of Central Saanich 1903 Mt, Newton Cross Road Saanichton BC VBM 249 (2so) s44-42rs
June 2017
Page 47 of 147 June 2OI7 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
1.0 The Project Corvidae Environmental Consultlng lnc. (Corvidae) was contacted to provide a an environmental assessment and associated reporting and environmental mitigations by a Qualified Environmental Professional (aEP) of the planned trail to be built to the water from 483 Dunmora Court, Central Saanich, BC; legal description - Strata Lot 6, Section 3, Range 3 West, South Saanich District, Strata PlanVlS7I22. The site is located on the eastern shore of Saanich lnlet, west of McPhail Road. The trail is partially within 15 m of the high watermark. The property is in the District of Central Saanich and this section of trail falls under the 15 m Marine Shoreline Development Permit Area (DPA). See Figure l- for the location of the proposed trail. The length of the proposed trail within the DPA is <15 m.
2.0 Regulations and Covenants
Official Community Plan Section 77 The District of Central Saanich Official Community Plan (OCP, 2009) Section 11- specifies that a QEP is required to provide mitigation measures to protect the environment within the Marine Shoreline DPA. Corvidae has completed this report to meet the environment requirements in the OCP. The Central Saanich OCP, Section 1,1,.2.4., states:
"The Shoreline Development Permit Area applies to all of those District lands within an area that extends 1-5m inlond ond seaword from the notural boundary of the oceon in the Plon Area. This Development Permit Area opplies to oll development proposed within the Shoreline DPA. A development permit is required for the following development activities where such octivities involve the subdivision of lond, construction of, addition to, or olterotion of a building or structure, or the olterotion of lond, except where such octivities are specifically exempt: a. Removal, olteration, disruption, or destruction of vegetation;"
As per section 1,1.2.5 of the OCP, the purpose of the Marine Shoreline DPA is to facilitate planning and regulation of "new development in o monner that preserves and protects the long-term physical integrity and ecologicolvolues of Central Saanich's shoreline and ossociated foreshore ond uplond oreos. . To guard agoinst erosion and avoid damage to public property. . To ensure public sofety. . To bolonce development opportunities with the ecological conservation of the shoreline environment."
Corvidae assessed the proposed traii location in the DPA and has provided project scope, rmpacts and proposed mitigations to protect the environment and prevent/minimize erosion on the shoreline.
Covenant
There is also a covenant on the strata. The covenant states lhal"The Owner covenants and ogrees with the District thot: ...(b) the Owner sholl not construct, build, erect or expond ony building or structure on the Londs except within ond Building Envelope, other than: ...... (v¡) on Lot 6, an occess system running from the Building Envelope to the Saonich lnlet foreshore;
1,
Page 48 of 147 June 2017 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
...(f) the Owner shall not instoll on irrigotion system or alter the natural drainage of the Londs outside of o Building Envelope;"
Tree Protection in the Erosion District The property and shoreline fall within the Erosion District of Central Saanich, which is within the area of Bylaw No. 993 - Tree Protection in the Erosion District. ln this area any trees proposed to be cleared require a permitfrom a Municipal Engineer. There are no large trees (>20 cm DBH) planned to be cleared in the 15 m shoreline DPA. The trail is avoidlng trees in order to minimize erosion. There is one small tree (<20 cm DBH) nearthe bottom of the trailthat will potentially be cut to make a safe slope forthe approach to the wooden deck (see Figure 1). The tree will be avoided if possible while having an approach that is not too steep for access.
Figure 1: Trail area ¡n the 15 m Marine Shoreline DPA \
Itt /' -'.tA ----
Plan
aÒ
AREA OF PATH I^IITHIN \ MARÍI,{E áEÍB^CE ONLY aJBJeOf 10 W o \ r# @ \ ,,@ ltâ.oo ml +'
E^EF,-12 o' 7 ?e'x.Å.41
o06 öp t :xl3TlNÈ iiÇ'-rràl-' 51¿llvì- !>-¡ L.È NOÍE: AREÀ OF NIfHIN MARÍNE ONLY 10 0? )
gAANI.'H INLET s I o
+ ,û -o o_-.--"^ \"r,/
Survey plan completed by Zebra Design
2
Page 49 of 147 June201-/ Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component,483 Dunmora Court
3.0 Project Scope and Methods
Corvidae assessed the entire shoreline area, including the proposed trail route to be built in the 15 m DPA. The environmental assessment determined the ecological features on the property along the shoreline. A detailed Environmental Assessment was previously completed (Halladay 2OI0); which was used as a reference when completing this environmental assessment. During the site visit the following features were assessed and documented the following in the area to be disturbed by the trail:
o vegetation species, o wildlife and wildlife habitat, including species with specific habitat needs that have potentialto be affected by the trail, . slope, aspect and slope materials, o solls and substrate material in trail location, and o surface water flow patterns.
Corvidae reviewed the trail plans and developed mitigations to minimize the trails impact on the environment. Mitigations measures include:
o avoidance of large trees, o minimal clearing, only clearing the trall width, o erosion and sediment control measures, o soil handling and storage, o timing for construction, and o vegetation planting for the areas that are disturbed, if needed, outside of the trail area.
4.O Vegetation The site is located in the Coastal Douglas-fir moist maritime (CDF-mm) biogeoclimatic zone (BC Conservation Data Centre 2017). lt is a unique habitat that occurs on the southeastern section of Vancouver lsland. The average rainfall is 635 mm/annually. The elevation of the trail is 4.9 m above sea level (ending at wooden deck area) to 7.3 m above sea level within the DPA. There are invasive species on the site, including spurge-laurel (dophne loureolo), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and English ivy (Hedero helix). This is indicative of previous disturbances and human use in the area. The site is an open Douglas-fir forest with an understory of salal and Oregon grape. There are Garry oak and arbutus trees on the site; ocean spray, mosses and grasses are found in the understory (see Photos). Native species within the DPA are listed in Table 1.
-)
Page 50 of 147 June 20\7 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
Table 1-: Vegetation Species in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor Douglas fir Pseudotsugo menziesii Nootka rose Roso nutkono Oregon grape Mohonio oquifolium , White fawn lily Erythronium oregonum Garry Oak Quercus garryln0 Salal Goultheria shollon Trillium Trillium ovotum Snowberry Symphoricarpos olbus False lily of the valley Moianthenum dilatatum Arbutus Arbutus menziesii
5.0 Wildlife The project is located in a mixed forest on a dry, west facing slope. Breeding birds that typically occur in the project area are pileated woodpecker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, Steller's jay, raven, chestnut-backed chickadee, brown creeper, winter wren and common robin. ln the project area there were no nests observed during the site visit in April2OIT.
There are no anticipated impacts to the local and migratory wildlife populations from the trail belng built because no large trees will be removed. Overall very little vegetation will be removed from the site, only the footprint of the trail (Figure 1). This will be done by hand and with a mini-excavator.
6.0 Slope, Aspect and Soil As evident by the rock walls in the DPA (see Photo 1-), and from hrstorlcal records accounted for in the Environmental Assessment (Halladay 2010), the area was previously disturbed for homesteading. The trail to access the wooden deck along the shore follows some of the historically terraced areas. The slope is steep, with rocky outcrops. The site is bedrock dominant with a thin, sandy/silty/loam soil on the surface. The topsoil depth is a range from 0 to 12 cm. lt is a llght brown soil with low loam content. The soil forming processes are predominantly from glaciation. The site has been influenced by fluvial and colluvial processes and marine impacts directly along the shoreline.
7.O Surface Water The surface waterflow is from eastto west, down the slope. However, there are several areas of fractured bedrock that surface water would flow into. The dry soils (after having a winter and spring of heavy rainfall) indicate well drained soils that do not hold moisture for long. This is also evident in the type of vegetation on the site. There are no ferns or other moisture loving plants along the slope where the trail is to be located. There were no signs of channeling, rilllng, gullying or other features indicating water concentrating and running down the surface of the slope. The slope characteristics indicate that rainwater is quickly absorbed into the ground and flows subsurface.
4
Page 51 of 147 iune 201-7 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
8.0 Area of Disturbance Figure l- shows the trail area that will be disturbed. Within the DPA the disturbance is 15 m long and 2.5 m wide, totaling 37.5 m2 of vegetation to be removed within the DPA.
Photos Evidence of walls Scotch broom along trail route
5
Page 52 of 147 June 2OI7 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
End of trail area leading to wooden deck trail note aurel
Flatter areas from terracing
6
Page 53 of 147 June 2017 Shoreli ne DPA, Environmental Com ponenl, 483 Dun mora Cou rt
9.0 Erosion and Sediment Control Mitigations The sandy soils are easily eroded, as indicated by the lack of topsoil in many areas. Disturbance to vegetation will expose soils that will quickly erode due to the steep slopes.
o To minimize impacts of the trail, clearing is to be done by hand and with a mini-excavator, clearing only within the trail footprint. o Clearing and trail construction will be done during dry conditions. o Avoid trees in the trail footprint where possible while keeping the trail a short length and a safe slope for access. Le. if the 0.2 m oak tree that is in the current path can be avoided by changing the path location slightly it will be, to be determined during trail construction. o Stack rocks that are to be cleared on the downslope side of the trailto act as a permanent sediment barrier. Where practical, maintain the moss cover on the rocks to act as a sponge for rainwater and sediment. Utilize existing rock walls already in place (see Photo 1)forthe edge of the trail. o Remove surface vegetation layer from the trail footprint (2.5 m width). . Strip topsoil and remove to be used in other areas outside the DPA. As per the arborist report, coverthe exposed topsoil with geotextile if it is to be sitting through rainfall events. A one lift strip is sufficient due to little to no subsoil and shallow bedrock. o Following vegetation and topsoil removal, import the gravel. o Ensure the gravel is clean and from a weed free source to prevent more invasive species from infesting the area. o Due to the site being well drained and steep, there is minimal concern of obstructing surface water flow. The trail will be a permeable 3/4" gravel, allowing rainwater to flow through to the ground. o lf there are areas outside the trail that have been scoured by the mini-excavator, place the vegetative mat from the initial trail clearing over the bare soil. This will provide a cover to minimize weed growth (specifically Scotch broom) on exposed soils. o Complete a follow-up vislt by a QEP to ensure the erosion control methods (rock, permeable drainage and vegetated edges) have worked effectively. o ln addition to the trail, Corvidae recommends cutting and removing the Scotch broom, leaving the base but removing the surface plant material prior to going to seed, to allow for surrounding vegetation to take over.
7
Page 54 of 147 June 2017 Shoreline DPA, Environmental Component, 483 Dunmora Court
10.0 Summary The trail is short and a small disturbance within the shoreline DPA. lf the mitigations provided here are followed then there will be minimal disturbance to the overall shoreline area. The erosion control by using existing rocks and vegetation will minimize topsoil eroding down the trail. Please contact me with any questions or to discuss further at 250-415-8553 or by email at [email protected].
Thank you,
t
o a
Julie Budgen, R.P.Bio., B.Sc., PDC 250-415-8553 Corvidae Environmental Consulting lnc
8
Page 55 of 147 Page 56 of 147 Page 5 of 12 Pages
PART 2 — TERMS OF INSTRUMENT
SECTION 219 COVENANT
THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the 1“day of November, 2011 is
BETWEEN:
0853856 B.C. LTD. (Inc. No. BC0853856), c/o #111 — 2506 Beacon Avenue, Sidney, B.C. V8L 1Y2 (the “Owner”)
AND:
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH 1903 Mt. Newton Cross Road Saanichton, BC V8M 2A9 (the “District”)
WHEREAS:
A. The Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of the lands and premises located in the District of Central Saanich, British Columbia, which are legally described in Part 2 of the Form E to which this instrument is attached(collectively, the “Lands”);
Section 219 of the Land Title Act (British Columbia) provides that there may be registered as a charge against the title to land a covenant, whether of a negative or positive nature, in respect of the use of land, the building on land, the subdivisionof land and the preservation of land or a speci?ed amenity on land;
The Owner and the District agree that the Lands contain trees and plants that should be protected during developmentof the Landsand at all times thereafter;
As a condition of the District approving subdivision of the Lands, the Owner has agreed to grant this covenant restricting construction on the Lands to designated building envelopes, and prohibiting the removal or disturbance of protected trees outside of those building envelopes;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act, and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) now paid to the Owner by the District (the receipt and suf?ciency of which is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
Page 57 of 147 Page 6 of 12 Pages
De?nitions
1. In this Agreement:
(a) “Building Envelope” means that part of a lot shown outlined in heavy black on the Explanatory Plan;
(b) “Explanatory Plan” means that plan prepared by Richard J. Wey, B.C.L.S. and certi?ed correct on W P3’? .35’? 2011, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Schedule“A”;
Use and Building Restrictions
2. The Owner covenants and agrees with the District that:
(a) the Lands shall not be used or built on except in accordance with this Agreement;
(b) the Owner shall not construct, build, erect or expand any building or structure on the Lands except within a Building Envelope, other than:
(i) a driveway leading from a private roadway to a residential dwelling on a Building Envelope;
(ii) a septic ?eld;
(iii) a well;
(iv) a well house;
(v) a power line or service conduits relating to those systems or structures referred to in Section 2(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) above; or
(vi) on Lot 6, an access system running from the Building Envelope to the Saanich Inlet foreshore;
(c) the Owner shall not carry on any blasting or seismic testing on the Lands outside of a Building Envelope except as is necessary to construct, build, erect or expand a structure permitted under Section 2(b) above;
(d) the Owner shall not place any temporary structure nor store any vehicles or equipment on the Lands outside of a Building Envelope except as is necessary to construct, build, erect or expand a structure permittedunder Section 2(b) above;
Page 58 of 147 Page 7 of 12 Pages
(e) the Owner shall not excavate or remove rocks or soils nor dump, deposit, store or place any non-native soil, rock, ?ll or other materials on the Lands outside of a Building Envelope except as is necessary to construct, build, erect or expand a structure pennitted under Section2(b) above;
(f) the Owner shall not install an irrigation system or alter the natural drainage of the Lands outside of a BuildingEnvelope; and
(g) the Owner shall not store or apply fertilizer or manufactured chemicals to the Lands outside of a Building Envelope.
Speci?c Relief
3. Because of the public interest in ensuring that all of the matters described in this Agreement are complied with, the public interest strongly favours the award of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, or an order for specific performance or other specific relief, by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the instance of the District in the event of an actual or threatenedbreach of this Agreement.
Inspection
4. The District may, by its officers, employees, contractors and agents, enter upon the Lands at all reasonable times for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this Agreement.
No Effect on Powers
5. This Agreement does not:
(3) prejudice, limit or affect the discretion, rights and powers of the District in the exercise of its functions under any public and private statutes, bylaws (including the Tree Protection Bylaw), orders and regulations, all of which may be fully and effectively exercised in relation to the Lands (including in relation to the use, development and subdivision of the Lands) as if this Agreement had not been executed and delivered by the Owner;
(b) impose on the District any duty of care or other legal duty of any kind to the Owner or to anyone else;
affect or limit any enactment relating to the use, development or subdivision of the Lands; or
(d) relieve the Owner from complying with any enactment, including in relation to the use, development or subdivision of the Lands.
Page 59 of 147 Page 10 of 12 Pages
Enurement
16. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof shall enure to the bene?t of andbe binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, as the case may be.
Entire Agreement
17. This Agreement is the entire agreement betweenthe parties regarding its subject.
As evidence of their agreement to be bound by the terms of this Agreement, the parties have executed the Land Title Act Form C attached to and forming part of this Agreement.
THIs IS THE INSTRUMENT CREATING THE COVENANT ENTERED INTo UNDER s. 219 OF THE LAND TITLE ACT BY THE REGISTERED OWNERS REFERRED To HEREIN AND sHowN oN PLAN VIP 79 3.54 \f. APPR ING OFFICER
HOPE V. BURNS Approving Officer District of Central Saanich
Page 60 of 147 The Corporation of the District of
Central Saanich
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
For the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017
To: Patrick Robins File: CAO
From: Ruth Malli Priority: Strategic Interim Manager, Planning and Operational Building
Date: September 01, 2017
Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following series of recommendations pertaining to the Brentwood Bay engagement "Navigating the Issues" be endorsed by the Committee and presented to Council for consideration and subsequent direction to staff:
1.1 Brentwood Bay Clean-Up a) Authorize the allocation of staff time and use of municipal equipment (within existing resources), to assist with the clean-up of Brentwood Bay under the leadership and funding of the Province (removal of unauthorized floats, dock sections) and Transport Canada (removal of derelict/abandoned vessels and mooring buoys that are impeding navigations), commencing in mid to late October 2017. b) Submit a request to the Capital Regional District (CRD) to waive tipping fees for portions of the clean-up initiative not funded by the Transport Canada Abandoned Boats Program.
1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135
Page 61 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues c) Continue to work with the Tsartlip First Nation to facilitate the clean-up initiative, including requesting access to the Tsartlip boat launch for directly related purposes.
1.2 Designated Sewage Area a) Apply to Transport Canada to have Brentwood Bay listed as a Designated Sewage Area under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations.
1.3 Designate Navigation Channels a) Work with Transport Canada and the local community to encourage the establishment and marking of designated navigation channels within Brentwood Bay. b) Work with Transport Canada and the local community to investigate the need for a fourth designated navigation channel into Tod Inlet. c) Send a letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Canadian Hydrographic Service) to request that the Transport Canada document outlining the navigational lines into Brentwood Bay be added to Chart 3441, with an explanation that this action would help to keep the navigable waterways into Brentwood Bay clear and safe.
1.4 Establish Direct Regulatory Authority a) Make Application for a (Nominal Rate) Land Act tenure over the portions of Brentwood Bay that are not already under other privately held Land Act tenures. b) Following the experience of other jurisdictions, create or amend the District’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning by-laws to limit and designate areas, tenure and conditions for permanent moorings, length of time anchorage is permitted, live-aboards and floats in the portions of Brentwood Bay that are under municipal jurisdiction.
1.5 Establish a Management Plan (Recommended for Approval in Principle, with further detailed information brought back to Council) a) Create a Management Plan for the monitoring of the tenure with partner agencies. Further information to be brought back to Council with respect to this recommendation on duration, number, location, standards and regulation.
Page 62 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues b) Continue to work with local marinas to establish, promote and monitor facilities for visiting and resident boaters, ensuring access to sewage dumping, garbage disposal and parking facilities. c) Continue to work on a regional basis with member municipalities of the CRD, BC Parks, the Tsartlip First Nation and the community of Willis Point in the Juan de Fuca electoral area. d) Continue to work with the existing live aboard and upland communities to understand and consider their needs and options for housing throughout the decision- making process, including the possibility of nominal rate mooring for appropriate vessels (holding tanks required).
1.6 Utilize Intergovernmental and Community Relationships a) Send a letter to the Government of Canada in support Bill C-219, tabled by Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Ladysmith Sheila Malcolmson – an Act to amend the Canadian Shipping Act 2001, aimed at reducing the environmental, economic and navigational hazards to Canadian waterways and coastlines posed by abandoned vessels. b) Send a letter to the Government of British Columbia to encourage adherence to the 2012 Union of BC Municipalities endorsed resolution to adopt the 'Washington model' for vessel registration and disposal. c) Utilize inter-governmental relationships with senior government agencies to monitor legislative changes that impact the District’s on-going efforts in Brentwood Bay, and to periodically report changes to Council. d) Work with senior levels of government, Island Health (VIHA), Tsartlip First Nation and other Capital Regional District members and societies to monitor and address concerns about water quality in Brentwood Bay.
1.7 Related Operational Recommendations a) Prepare a communication and signage strategy to increase public awareness of the prohibition of sewage discharge in the Brentwood Bay area, including the associated environmental impacts. b) Continue to work with the community to determine and recommend ways to address ongoing parking conflicts in the Brentwood Bay area (consider a parking study, if warranted).
Page 63 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues c) Investigate and, if determined appropriate, install higher capacity garbage cans in the Brentwood Bay area.
BACKGROUND:
Council has previously directed that action be taken to address community concerns about the impacts from a variety of uses in Brentwood Bay. This issue is a strategic priority for Council under Strategic Priority-Preserving Healthy Abundant Ecosystem At a meeting in December 2016, Council directed a phased approach:
Phase 1 – Short Term Item Status Council reach out to the Council of Tsartlip First Nation to gauge if there is a In progress desire to work together to jointly develop a management plan for Brentwood Bay. Council request that the provincial and federal governments provide Completed additional resources for the proper removal and disposal of derelict and abandoned vessels, buoys and other marine refuse, and that the District approach those governments to address the regulation of pumpouts. The District hold a public information meeting to gather feedback on the Completed points raised and confirm or add to the understanding of the issues being experienced by the community in Brentwood Bay.
Phase 2 – Medium Term Item Status Having gathered public input, Council indicate whether taking on a more Decision pending direct role in the monitoring, regulation and enforcement of activities in – see Brentwood Bay is to be pursued as a municipal priority. recommendations
Council direct staff to prepare cost estimates for: the development of new Decision pending regulatory bylaws; preparation of an application for a provincial Licence; – see new resources for communication, monitoring and enforcement; and any recommendations new capital improvements, for consideration in the budget and five-year financial plan. Council direct staff to draft terms of reference for a Technical Advisory Decision pending Committee to advise Council on the development of a new management – see plan for Brentwood Bay including new regulations covering moorage and recommendations
Page 64 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues live-aboards, backed by a provincial Licence of Occupation. Council consider inviting members of the CSPS Saanich Inlet Working Decision pending Group to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee. – see recommendations Council direct staff to proceed with a District-initiated bylaw process and Decision pending application for provincial Licence of Occupation, public engagement and – see communication strategy. recommendations
On July 10, 2017 Council gave direction to proceed with the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Brentwood Bay. The purpose of the Plan was to complete an inventory of issues; leverage the work and knowledge of other agencies; prepare a list of implementation strategies for Council’s consideration; and, to make application for funding under the Government of Canada Abandoned Boats Program-Assessments and Removals. Council gave further direction that staff send correspondence to the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area of the CRD seeking financial support for the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
The purpose of this report is to report back to Council on the results of the community and stakeholder engagement, as well as the status of the federal grant application and the request for funding from the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. Recommendations on next steps are made for Council consideration.
It is further recommended that the project continue on the phased approach path, as previously directed by Council and that staff be requested to bring back further information on the Management Plan components should Council wish to proceed with the License of Occupation and Designated Sewage Area.
DISCUSSION:
Reporting Back - Community Engagement Following Council direction that the District hold a public information meeting to gather feedback on and an understanding of the issues being experienced by the community in Brentwood Bay, a community engagement process was launched in July and continued through August. An online engagement tool called Place Speak provided opportunities for online poll questions, a survey and several discussion topics. Over 2200 people reviewed the topic and 224 people signed up online. An open house was held in Brentwood Bay on August 22, 2017 with approximately 50 people in attendance.
A survey was conducted online and hard copies of the survey were also welcomed at designated drop-off points, which included District offices, Anglers Marina and Tsartlip First Nation administrative offices. A total of 93 hard copy surveys were received, approximately 30
Page 65 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues of which from Tsartlip First Nation, along with 207 completed online for a total 300 completed or partially completed surveys. Graphs and survey discussions from the online discussions on Place Speak have been summarized and combined with written responses from the open house and written surveys (Appendix A).
The online comments are available for review by Council at www.placespeak.com Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues. Written comments are available in Appendix B.
The Tsartlip First Nation has played an active role in the engagement and has expressed a keen interest in the harbour returning to a pristine condition in order to restore traditional food sources and harvesting. Discussions were held with members of the community, who noted that historically 'when the tide went out, dinner was served'.
Other agencies and governments have worked collaboratively to provide support within their mandates and have sought creative and innovative solutions to the issues. In addition, there has been significant involvement by the Brentwood Bay and Central Saanich communities, in particular the members of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society (SIPS) and Central Saanich Maritime Society (CSMS). The information contained in this report relies heavily on the work and efforts of both however, the recommendations are based on the community consultation process and not from any individual or organization.
Numerous other individuals and groups have offered support to the resolution of the issues and their comments and opinions are also invaluable. In summary, it is the coming together of all of these people and agencies that results in the recommended actions contained in this staff report.
Key findings of the community engagement are as follows:
• In general, the community engagement confirmed that the concerns about Brentwood Bay remain varied and inter-related. (Appendix A).
• The community was asked which activities are most enjoyed in the Bay both historically and today - beach walks, swimming, fishing and boating were most popular, as well as snorkeling, prawning, kayaking and paddle boarding.
• Sewage discharge and garbage from vessels moored and operating within the area was recognized as the most significant concern for the community. 90% of respondents support the Saanich Inlet being a 'no sewage dump zone' and 89% support strict enforcement of the required holding tank law.
• Abandoned and sunken vessels were the next highest concern, followed by the accumulation of too many vessels and navigating the crowded waters safely.
Page 66 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
• There is support for regulating the number of buoys in Brentwood Bay, with 78% agreement, 18% neutral and 4% is disagreement. 37% of respondents believe that acceptable, affordable moorage currently exists in Brentwood Bay, 14% disagree and 49% neutral on the question. 80% of respondents support dedicated moorage being available for visiting boaters in Brentwood Bay. It is known that moorage is not always available.
• There is a high concern about unlicensed and possibly uninsured vessels (84%).
• Navigational channels are a concern for 69% of the survey respondents.
• Discussions held at the open house and online indicate that there are varying opinions on live-aboard vessels in the harbour. Some members of the community desire no live- aboard vessels but others point to the live-aboard members of the community as the 'eyes and ears of the water' and note the contributions that some of these residents make to the overall safety and enjoyment of the harbour. In addition, there is some support in the community for live-aboard vessels offering an affordable housing option for the community. In the survey, 52% of respondents strongly agree live-aboards are a concern in Brentwood Bay (slightly higher for Central Saanich residents only at 56%)
• Garbage was cited as a concern by some people. It is recommended that the District consider in-ground, high capacity trash cans, which have been successful in other municipalities. http://www.swrl.com/m/sybertech_waste_reduction_inground_trash_system.html
• The issue of parking in Brentwood Bay was raised as a concern by many residents (68% of the respondents agree). Residents cite certain areas where cars are parked overnight and suggest that Council consider prohibiting overnight parking in Brentwood Bay. Parking is limited in the area and options could include partnerships with existing private land in the area. More information is required to address the issue of parking and it is recommended that the situation be further investigated and that Council consider a parking study. This could be completed at relatively minimum cost utilizing existing resources. The fundamental issue is that Brentwood Bay has a lot of activity and need for parking and much of the available parking is in residential areas. The issue will therefore not be easily resolved without creative solutions.
• Noise was cited as a concern to some people, although it was the lowest ranked of all known issues. This is consistent with data from the District (police and bylaw). There are occasional concerns, which are handled through existing resources. There are no recommended changes to the current response.
• There is support for the District to dedicate more resources and funding towards long- term solutions for Brentwood Bay (86% agree).
Page 67 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
• Several people expressed concern about the overall water quality in Brentwood Bay, with contributions from both water and land based activities.
A considerable amount of related research was undertaken throughout the engagement period, and key findings include the following:
• Transport Canada has the authority and mandate to remove vessels, moorings or other objects that are an impediment to navigation within a designated navigation channel. Moored vessels that are not impeding navigation do not fall within this mandate.
• The Province has the authority to remove structures that occupy Crown land (including aquatic lands) unless those structures have some form of legal authority, such as a Land Act tenure. This authority does not extend to moored vessels. Any party, including the Province, may apply to the Receiver of Wrecks to remove abandoned/derelict vessels from Crown land, but if a vessel owner can be found or the vessel is not deemed to be abandoned/derelict then the application would not be approved.
• Municipal bylaws can be used to prohibit permanent live-aboard moorings within an area of water that is under municipal jurisdiction. An example of zoning being used for this purpose is the case of West Kelowna (District) v. Newcombe in which the trial judge held that the municipality does have the authority to prohibit permanent live-aboard moorage (but not temporary moorage, which falls under federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping). At present, the zoning over Brentwood Bay allows for “private float facilities”, but does not specifically address permanent live-aboard moorings. The official community plan (7.2.6 Policy 4) states that "Marine-based housing (live-aboards, float homes) is not supported unless it can be demonstrated that the environmental consequences of marine-based living, particularly with respect to sewage, are minimal.
• A tenure over the Crown foreshore, issued under the Land Act, could also be used to provide a stronger legal right to manage both the number and nature of moorings within Brentwood Bay. A licence of occupation does not provide a licence holder with exclusive use of the area, but does not allow other users to prevent or impede the use of the area for the licenced purpose. A Land Act tenure would also provide the District of Central Saanich with the ability to charge rental fees for mooring buoys within the tenure area. Rental fees help cover tenure monitoring costs and reduce the financial incentive to store a vessel on a mooring buoy rather than in a marina.
• In many areas of the South Coast, including Brentwood Bay, marinas are at capacity and do not have moorage readily available even for vessel owners who are willing to pay the prevailing moorage rates. A mooring buoy installed on Crown foreshore may be the only option available while the vessel owner waits for a slip in a local marina to come available.
Page 68 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
• The cost of moorage in a marina may also deter some vessels owners, even if moorage is available. Moorage at commercial marinas in the area is priced at $11 to $15 per foot per month, which equates to about $3600 to $5400 for annual moorage for a 25 to 30-foot boat. Vessel owners with limited financial resources may not be able to afford such fees. Many vessel owners that can afford such fees will still choose the lower cost alternative of a mooring buoy.
• A mooring buoy installed on Crown foreshore does not provide the same ease of access or level of security against vessel loss as moorage in a marina, but many vessel owners are willing to accept higher risk and inconvenience given the substantial cost savings.
• For considerably less than the cost of one year’s moorage at a marina, vessel owners can have a mooring buoy installed with a concrete block or other suitably heavy anchor holding it in place. A local contractor currently offers installation of a mooring buoy with concrete anchor for about $2500. Home-made mooring buoys and anchors used by many vessel owners can be installed for less than $1000. Once installed, there are currently no additional annual costs. There appears to be some mooring buoys that are not in active use.
• Boat recycling (including grinding of fiberglass hulls for reuse in other products) is not readily available on southern Vancouver Island. Boat recycling is available in the Lower Mainland, but may be too expensive (minimum $100 per foot based on recent market research) to be an attractive option for some vessel owners. However, a discussion with one private operator on the lower mainland indicates that there is a business opportunity for innovation in this area.
• Other options for managing disposal have been proposed and endorsed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. In 2012, a motion from Ladysmith was supported for the Province to establish a program similar to that of Washington State (Appendix C). Vessels are licensed and the revenue from those licenses funds the disposal and removal of vessels in Washington waters. This ensures that issues are dealt with comprehensively and not moved from one jurisdiction to the next. This is a good long- term strategy for addressing the problem of derelict and abandoned vessels and it is recommended that Council encourage the Province to follow through on this type of program.
• Detailed tidal flow studies and modelling completed in 1996 indicate that the area has relatively poor flushing by tidal action due to several geographic factors and that inflow from freshwater sources (Hagen Creek and Tod Creek) are also insufficient to create good flushing action within the area. All of Brentwood Bay and Tod Inlet are under year-round shellfish harvesting closures due to sanitary contamination concerns.
Page 69 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
• A Designated Sewage Area under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulation has been discussed for the Saanich Inlet for many years. In researching the topic, it seems that a formal application has not been made for the inlet or Brentwood Bay.
• Several factors appear to be contributing to sewage discharge from vessels within the area. Cost and convenience of discharging directly into the ocean (rather than using available pump out facilities) are likely the two most significant factors. Section 96 of the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations allows for the discharge of untreated sewage from vessels within 3 nautical miles of shore subject to specific conditions (travelling at a minimum 4 knots, on an ebb tide and in the deepest water possible), but prohibits such discharge if a reception facility that can receive the sewage in an environmentally safe manner is available.
• There are two pump-out facilities located within the area as well as a mobile pump out; however, not all vessels have sewage storage tanks. Some permanent live-aboard vessels moored within the area may not be capable of accessing pump out facilities (e.g. vessels are not powered) and some vessel owners may not be willing to wait to have their storage tanks pumped when facilities are busy and not immediately available. It should be noted that this summer, one of the marinas was upgrading their facilities and the pump out was not operational. The conclusion of the upgrades to the marina will see the return of the pump out facility.
• Enforcing a prohibition of sewage discharge is difficult unless it is witnessed by law enforcement officials and vessel owners may argue that they are in substantial compliance with the regulations if they are in transit while discharging or local pump out facilities are not readily available.
• Alternatives for improving compliance include raising awareness of the problem within the local boating community, random inspections by enforcement agencies and ensuring that sewage pump-out facilities are available to the public at local marinas. Local marinas are willing to explore partnerships with the District to provide (and in some cases, have already provided) pump out services for a low cost to the public. Staff will bring back for Council consideration in the future options for these partnerships.
• A recent inventory completed by volunteer’s shows that there are currently over 100 moored items (mooring buoys, moored platforms/dock sections, anchored vessels) within the area. In comparison, Montague Harbour Provincial Marine Park, which is already a Designated Sewage Area under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations, maintains a total of 40 mooring buoys for short term moorage use by park visitors.
Reporting Back – Federal Grant Application
Page 70 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
The Abandoned Boats Program involves a three-step application process, beginning with authorization to take possession of the vessels. The second step includes an application for funding towards assessment of the vessels (up to $5,000 per vessel), and the third step involves an application for funding in the amount of $50,000 per vessel towards removal and disposal. An application to take possession of ten vessels was completed with information compiled by community members. Transport Canada is currently reviewing the applications for these vessels.
Reporting Back – Funding Request to Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Discussions were held with Juan de Fuca Electoral Area and their decision is to continue to participate in the Capital Regional District efforts for the removal of vessels.
ANALYSIS:
Based on the key community engagement and research findings outlined above, this section identifies critical issues and discusses possible implementation strategies for Council’s consideration – these are reflected in the report recommendations.
• Inclusion of the Brentwood Bay area in the list of Designated Sewage Areas (DSA) under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations would help to manage the problem of sewage discharge by providing a very clear standard (no sewage discharge allowed) that will be more easily enforced than the terms under which sewage may currently be legally discharged (under Section 96 of the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations). The OCP specifically mentions supporting the designation of the Saanich Inlet under the Federal Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Protection Guidelines. (See OCP 2008 section 7.2.5 to 7.2.7 which speaks to specific encouragement for public use and enjoyment of the local waters as well as protection of ecological values). Options for monitoring compliance to the DSA are Conservation Officers, Police, Fisheries Officers and termination of moorage agreements.
• The Province and Transport Canada are willing to lead and the clean-up of Brentwood Bay in mid to late October of this year. These efforts are considered a high priority for the Province only if the District is willing to enter into a license of occupation for the area. This ensures that the clean-up efforts do not require repeating in a couple of years.
• Live-aboard members of the community can currently reside at marinas as caretakers and residents. Council direction is requested on the options for live-aboard vessels in the harbour, (including nominal rate mooring for vessels meeting compliance requirements such as holding tanks). The number and placement of vessels can be part of the analysis with partner agencies for the monitoring of the tenure. The OCP does not support live-aboards or float homes unless the consequences to the environment (particularly with respect to sewage) are minimal. Changes to the Zoning Bylaw may be required to permit live-aboard vessels in the harbour.
Page 71 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
• For considerably less than the cost of one year’s moorage at a marina, vessel owners can have a mooring buoy installed with a concrete block or other suitably heavy anchor holding it in place. This factor is likely the most significant “root cause” behind vessel owner’s decisions to install their own mooring buoys in Brentwood Bay. Any actions that can be taken to make available alternatives more attractive will reduce the number of permanent moorings in Brentwood Bay. Therefore, Council may wish to consider including nominal rate mooring for a limited number of vessels.
• An expansion of local marina facilities could help to reduce the number of permanent moorings within Brentwood Bay. A portion of the vessel owners that currently use permanent moorings may opt for the convenience and security of a marina if moorage is available, especially if an increase in the supply of available dock space results in a reduction in moorage rates. Many marinas do not allow owners to live aboard (and current zoning limits), so an increase in available dock space may only be an inducement to owners that are not living on their vessels. Expansion of local marina facilities could be encouraged, but the decision to do so would be up to marina operators as well as to community and Council desire.
• Owners of vessels that have deteriorated to the point that they are no longer operable and have little to no value may view installation of a mooring buoy as the lowest cost option for storing and disposal of their vessels. Options presented to UBCM include following a successful program that has been operating in Washington. A similar program in B.C. would address the issue of derelict and abandoned vessels and it is recommended that Council encourage the Province to follow through on this type of program.
• The issue of abandoned vessels exists throughout coastal areas in Canada. It is recommended that Council send a letter to the Government of Canada in support Bill C- 219, tabled by Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Ladysmith Sheila Malcolmson – an Act to amend the Canadian Shipping Act 2001, aimed at reducing the environmental, economic and navigational hazards to Canadian waterways and coastlines posed by abandoned vessels.
• Shellfish harvesting is prohibited within Brentwood Bay as it falls within a year-round Sanitary Contamination Closure that covers all waters inside a boundary that extends from Henderson Point (the next point north of Sluggett Point) to Willis Point. Restoring the waters to previously enjoyed conditions is of particular importance to the Tsartlip First Nations. Discussions were held with members of the community, who noted that historically 'when the tide went out, dinner was served'. Several members of the Tsartlip and greater Central Saanich community expressed a desire for enhanced water quality monitoring in Brentwood Bay. It is recommended that the District work with senior levels of government, VIHA, Tsartlip First Nations and other Capital Regional District
Page 72 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
members and societies to monitor and address concerns about water quality in Brentwood Bay.
• It is also recommended that Council to send a letter of request for the use of the boat launch for the clean-up of the harbour and include the Tsartlip community in the role of monitoring the tenure, should Council support that direction. The OCP supports including First Nations in the long term strategizing and planning and specifically mentions the Tsartlip boat ramp being highly valued by the community.
• The community continues to come together to address issues of concern in Brentwood Bay. It is recommended that the District create a plan for the monitoring of the tenure with partner agencies (this could include a Technical Advisory Committee). Further information to be brought back to Council with respect to this recommendation on duration, number, location, standards and regulation.
• Local businesses continue to offer solutions to some areas of concern. It is recommended that the District continue to work with local marinas to establish, promote and monitor facilities for visiting and resident boaters, ensuring access to sewage dumping, garbage disposal and parking facilities.
• It is critical that the actions of the District do not create unintended consequences to others. Therefore, it is recommended that the District continue to work on a regional basis with member municipalities of the CRD, BC Parks, the Tsartlip First Nation and the community of Willis Point in the Juan de Fuca electoral area. Financial Implications:
The application for a nominal rate tenure from the Province is a high-priority recommendation. Council had previously considered a “ballpark” estimation of costs. Depending upon the decisions of Council and the proposed Technical Advisory Committee recommendations, the Nominal Rate tenure could be cost neutral to the taxpayer. Additional initial costs could be incurred for the acquisition of marker buoys and installation of high capacity trash containers. The revised budget follows and is illustrative of costs that could be incurred. All financial aspects should be referred to financial planning discussions.
Capital Costs (one- Original “Ballpark” Revised Budget ($) Comments time start up) Estimate ($) Marker Buoys (original) 36,000 Additional cost if $1,500 x 24) fourth channel; Marker Buoys (revised) $10k per channel 30,000 Assume 'own' mooring Moorage Buoys 75,000 buoys for nominal rate (revised) $2,500 x 30) rental
Page 73 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
Wharf pump out facility 90,000 N/A Marinas willing to partner and therefore not necessary Wharf webcams 3,000 N/A Marinas willing to partner Wharf refuse cans 400 10,000 High capacity cans Porta-potty distribution 4,000 N/A Marinas willing to partner Additional signage 2,000 2,000 Application for LOO 50,000 1,000 Nominal Rate Tenure Public Engagement 25,000 15,000 $12,500 authorized for Engagement Plan; additional funding for LOO and DSA consultation Total $210,400 $133,000 Recommend reallocating budgeted wharf pump-out funding towards this cost-balance to budget discussions ($12,500 already funded)
Operating Costs Original “Ballpark” Revised Budget ($) Comments (annual) Budget ($) Revenue: Nominal rate (6,000) 10 x $50 a month Market rate (seasonal) 30 (45,000) x $20 night x 75 nights Additional compliance 45,000 staff Pump-out and 4,500 N/A maintenance Communication 7,000 5,000 Ongoing education Garbage Collection 4,000 3,000 Patrol Boat 6,000 0 Contract operator 51,000 Total $ 66,500 $8,000
Implementation Schedule:
Page 74 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
Brentwood Bay Action Items: estimated timelines based on Council approval on Sept 18, 2017
Recommendation Start End Responsibility District Commitment 1.1 Brentwood Bay Clean-Up a. Clean up and remove Oct Dec • Transport Existing staff unauthorized floats, docks, 2017 2017 Canada and equipment derelict/abandoned vessels, • Province reallocated, mooring buoys impeding • District minimal staff navigation time b. Request CRD waive tipping Sept Oct • Staff Write letter, fees 2017 2017 minimal staff time c. Work with Tsartlip First Sept Oct • Staff Write letter, Nation-access to boat ramp 2017 2017 monitor with Tsartlip staff, minimal staff time 1.2 Designated Sewage Area a. Apply to have designated Oct Mar • Staff Draft prepared, Sewage Area 2017 2018 • TC staff consultation (estimated required, time for TC to minimal staff process time application 4- 8 months) 1.3 Designate Navigation Channels a. Designated Navigation Sept Dec • Staff minimal staff Channels 2017 2017 • TC staff time b. Fourth channel Sept Dec • Staff minimal staff 2017 2017 • TC staff time c. Add to Chart 3441 Sept • Staff minimal staff 2017 • FOC staff time 1.4 Establish Direct Regulatory Authority a. Application for a (Nominal Sept Jan • Staff Draft prepared, Rate) Land Act tenure 2017 2018 • Province consultation (estimated required 120 days) (minimal cost) b. Amend OCP and Zoning Sept Jan • Staff Dedicated staff bylaws 2017 2018 time required and
Page 75 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
consultation 1.5 Establish a Management Plan a. Create a Management Plan Sept Jan • Staff Dedicated staff 2017 2018 • Police time required • Partners • Technical Budget referral advisory group on marker and • Tsartlip mooring • CRD buoys. • Willis Point • Province Staff to provide • TC project charter and reports for Council consideration b. Work with local marinas Sept Jan • Staff Dedicated staff 2017 2018 • Marinas time required c. Work on a regional basis Sept Jan • Staff Dedicated staff 2017 2018 • CRD time required • Tsartlip • Willis Point d. Work with the existing live Sept Jan • Staff Dedicated staff aboard and upland 2017 2018 • Community time required communities 1.6 Utilize Intergovernmental and Community Relationships a. Letter of support Bill C-219 Sept Sept • Staff Minimal staff 2017 2017 time b. Letter of support UBCM Sept Sept • Staff Minimal staff 2012-Washington model 2017 2017 time c. On going monitoring of Nov On going • Staff Minimal staff legislative changes 2017 • VIHA time • Tsartlip • CRD 1.7 Related Operational Recommendations a. Communication and signage Mar Sept • Staff Minimal staff strategy to increase public 2018 2018 • Contractor time within awareness of the prohibition Refer to existing of sewage discharge budget for resources. approval and Some budget focus on for design and boating signs.
Page 76 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
season for timing b. Continue to address parking Mar May • Staff Dedicated staff conflicts 2018 2018 • Police time within existing resources
Consider parking study in budget c. Investigate and install high Mar May • Staff Minimal- capacity garbage cans 2018 2018 Dedicated staff Refer to time within budget existing resources. Budget for purchase
CONCLUSION:
Council has directed that a public consultation be conducted to inventory community issues in Brentwood Bay. A public consultation was held in July and August, the results of which are to be presented to a Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017.
There are twenty recommendations to address the issues raised by the community. Some recommendations require further investigation. Information (and project charters) will be brought back to Council for approval, including referrals to budget.
The key decision to be made at this time is Council direction on the Designated Sewage Area and Licence of Occupation. An opportunity exists for an immediate clean-up of the harbour, led and funded by senior levels of government. This clean-up can commence in mid October of this year. To be considered a high priority for the Province, a decision is required on Council’s willingness to enter into a nominal rate tenure over Brentwood Bay (License of Occupation). Prior to concluding the License of Occupation, the District would complete a Management Plan. The Management Plan will be brought back to Council for approval, following consultation with impacted users and other governments and agencies.
Council’s consideration and direction are respectfully requested in order to continue implementation of this strategic initiative.
Page 77 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, CAO September 01, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Brentwood Bay-Navigating the Issues
ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A Survey Results Endorsed by: Appendix B Comments Norm Doerksen Appendix C UBCM 2012 Superintendent of Public Works Appendix D Draft application for Designated Sewage Area Endorsed by: Appendix E Draft application for a Nominal Chris Hall
Rent Tenure Interim Manager of Current Planning Appendix F Bill 219
Endorsed by: Paul Murray Director of Financial Services
Endorsed by: John Manson Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works
Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer
Page 78 of 147 Appendix A
Brentwood Bay - Navigating the lssues Fall 2OL7 Su rvey results
Q7: Søonich lnlet should be o'no sewoge dump zone (273 responses, 196 from Centrol Soonich)
Strorrgly r\;1 oc 95.6% Agree
/t¡1 r r't' 23% Disagree Í'lr. ttr,rl
[) :.tf'r L'r'
\lr rrrr, \, l)tr.r1,,roo 90.1,%
Q2: The number ol buoys ín Brentwood Bay should be regulated. (273 responses, 796 from Centrol Saanich)
.'(r"
. .l i: 'l:..- 17.6% 78.O% Agree
4.4% Disagree i l.,lri.r tì '".¡ Jl4' i):¡.ì::i,r' 22.3% .r I rr j, l).ì¿iat, ,'
Q3: Acceptable, affordable moorage currently exists in Brentwood Boy. (269 responses, 193 from Central Saanich)
36.8% Agree
L4.5% Disagree
Page 79 of 147 Appendix A
Brentwood Bay - Navigating the lssues Fall 2Ot7 Survey results
Q4:There should be dedicoted moorage ovoiloble for visítíng boaters in Brentwood Bdy. (273 responses, 796 from Centrol Soanich)
t lt L J
\tr on1lly A¡ircr, 795% Agree 3) 6ri., ./\r1r t'r' 5.I% Disagree l!t'Lrl r,rl
t) ts,r 11r rr'
\i 0nfll\ ¡¡¡¡ ,rrlr{.r- 4(t ()'jtr'
Q5: Navîgøtional chonnels are o concern in Brentwood Bay. (271 responses, 795 from Centrol Soanich)
I !ì' , ,l I";
\i Irt,.l\ i\:ll,',,
,\i: 69.4% Agree 24.716 r " r' ItlcLrt,rl 5S% Disagree l)ls,rilr tr.
;ì orrli; L) s r¡1rlo 26 9%,
Q6: LÍveoboards ore ø concern in Brentwood Boy. (270 responses, 194 from Centrol Saanich)
:lj 5rl'l;
!t t on¡;ly A¡1r lr. 70.7% Agree 19.3% /\llr ce Nr¡Lt1r¡l tO.O% Disagree :;). ).% Dir,rgr ct:
lB.\%, 1ìtt'ongly I)rsagrt r:
Page 80 of 147 Appendix A
Brentwood Bay - Navigating the lssues Fall 2017 Survey results
Q7 Parking is a concern ín the drea. (273 responses, 196 from Central Saanich)
r5% 1.3%
Strongly Âgreo 67.8% Agree 35.5% Agr ee 8.8% Disagree -' Nc Lrtr¿
Dls;r¡1 r,"
5Ìrorrgl,¡ [)r:,ag rc
Q8: lJnlicensed ønd possÍbly uninsured vessels orc o concern in Brentwood Boy (277 responses, 194 from Central Soonich)
.) -2 :'t, I 5'Ì,,
Strr--rngl¡ Âgree 83.8% Agree r\gree - 3.7% Disagree I8 8% ./ NeLrtr.rl D :tlli tltì 64.9% 5trorr¡: r []rs,t¡1rce
Q9: I would lÍke to see strict enforcement oÍ the requíred holdíng tonk law. (272 responses,795 from central Saonich)
88.6% Agree Sl r orgly rigr ee
12.7% Agree 2.2% Disagree Neutr al
Disagr c,tr
76.59',. Stron¡1ly I)ìsagree
Page 81 of 147 Appendix A
Brentwood Bay - Navigating the lssues Fall 2OL7 Survey results
Q10 I would support the District of Centrdl Saanich dedicating more resources and funding towords long-term solutíons for Brentwood Bay (such as more Bylow Enforcement officers, facilíties, etc).
(271 responses, 796 from Centrol Saanich)
3OY ).r/o
Stron¡1ly Àgrc-tr 86.0% Agree
Agt et 63% Disagree 2.2 9% Nctrtr,il
Dis.r¡1rcc 63.1% Str on¡ily [)rsa¡1r r:tr
Relative Ranking of Key lssues
I 500
2000
1500
r 000 1.954 rt65 1,451 1.324 500 1.013 869 843 471 0
0, c Lø g c, o c à0r o c, !, q, g! ú p .!û, J .E lú P c lE L6J o ã E z o s 6 o ¡ 6 o f ilE ó Ê Êc, P¡¿ !to 9E E ît g f PE- õ91 or rË uo eo ¡l! .9 ð: E8 õ8 ã= gT Ìl o P> be ùo -o, o o a! o .! cú !, :! c E Ê3 L.! tú € =.o .o E .! €€ l¡ J Éü s.Ë o (9, l¡ E o ! e8 t¡ .E u *: E J(, s ól! 5lo s 6 z
Page 82 of 147 Appendix A
Brentwood Bay - Navigating the lssues Fall 2Ol7 Survey results
Detailed Results
Ê o É o ñ .r d ! 8o ú @ 3 c ËÈq ì ! ø G Ê @ c o ú: 1 o c E E o o o @ Ê !q ß¡l= o o o .s 8 t g ¡ ü o o q €€;- o ! ,2 o Ì @ @ ã õ 0 o õ G o c 6 o É I s E o ã G ó ! o ËEË ! o o o .: 8 ú o ó o Ê B ! ã ì ! o ñ 6€ o tr o E ì 8 @ U o o u 5 o ã ] o 8 6 o b o Ê o Ê ü E d 'Ë c c 8 ! o @ t o o É o s Ê E ñ o o o ! q Ê ¡ '= t ¡ ! L Õ '6 ! o G o ! ! c d o o d a G & o ¡ È @ E 3à 5 t>co o ò o !ó G 60 õ o o g o o ! !! J E ¡ ¡ E¡to E ñ qoûô E o @ ! a 63 ú c i eg Ê gË @ I o¿ ! ¡e c o G J o @ o o o G ì o s -t9 z 5 =ofó Ì G :F¡ StronÂlvAsree 246 752 31 89 !L5 r47 91 r7c 208 r71.
15 61 68 L28 50 88 5l 33 62
Neutral 4 48 131 42 67 52 u 34 25 21
D¡s a gre e 2 5 2Ê 10 11 16 2A 4 2 I
StronglV Disagree 6 1 1.3 4 5 LI 4 Ê 4 9 Total Responses 273 273 269 273 277 274 273 271 272 271
Stron gl v Agre e L79 LrA 22 63 79 110 79 724 1,48 r28
¡ Agree 1.0 47 50 92 60 29 64 39 21 44 a '), 25 74 o Neutra I 32 91 31 43 37 33 LI D¡sagree 1 4 23 8 9 10 16 3 1 6 c o Stronelv Disasree 5 5 1 2 4 8 4 3 2 4 U Total Responses 196 L96 193 196 195 194 196 t94 19s 196
Stronslv Asree 38 9 26 36 31 18 52 50 43 67
Agre e 20 18 36 13 2I 24 L2 6 18 5 c! 11 15 31 9 8 7 3 u- Ne utra I 16 40 24 !o D¡sasree 1 3 2 2 6 4 7 '1, 2 7 'Gø
1,) 2 5 ! oJ StronRlv D¡saeree 2 6 2 3 0 3 Total Responses 76 77 7Ê 76 77 75
Stronelv Aeree 90.7% 55 7% LL5% 32.6vo 42.4% s22% 35.svo 64.9% 76.5% 63 1%
Agre e 5.5% 22.3% 25 3% 46.9% 269% L85% 32.2% L8.8% t2.L% 22.90/o
Neutra I r5% L7 6% 44.7% 15.4% 24.7% L9 3% 23.4% t2.5% 92% 77%
Disaeree o.7% t.80/. 97% 3.70/o 41% s.90/o 7.3% L5% o.7% 3.Ovo
Stronalv Disaeree 22% 26% 4.80/a L5% L.80/o 4r% L.5% L.5% 3.3%
Total Resoonses 700 0% t00.0% roo.o% 100 0% 100.o% 700 0% 100 0% too.o% L00.o% too 0%
Stronal v Aeree 913% s8.2% 7r.4% 32t% 405% 56.7% 403% 639% 759% 65 3%
Agree 5.L% 20.90/. 25 9% 46.9vo 30.8% 149% 32.7% 20 1./" L3.a% 22.4vo
Neutral 0.s% t6.3% 47 2% t5 8% 22 r% T9,L% 1,68% 12.9% 87% 7.t% 8.2% r5% o.5% 37% e O¡sagree o.5% 20% !1.9% 4r% 4.6% 5.2% c Strongly D¡sagree 2.6% 2.6% 3.6% L.O% 2.L% 4.1% 20% r5% 1,.0% 2.0% U Total Responses ro0 0% 100 0% LOO.O% [email protected]% LOO.O% 100.0% L00.0% r000% L00.o% 700.0%
Stro nsl v APre e 49.4% 11,.8% 33.8% 47.4% 40 8% 23.4% 67 5% 77s% 57 3% 87.O% 6 Asree 260% 23.7% 46.8% 17 7% 27.6% 31.2% 75 6% 7.80/a 24.0% 6.s% CE 79.1% 40 3% 4% 93% 39% UE Ne utra I 20 8% 52 6% t43% 31,.60/" tt.1% t0 oo 2.60/" 7.9% s2% L.3% 73% 2.7% L3vo EO'í; ø Disasree 73% 39% 2.6% J Stronelv D¡saeree 2.6% 79% 2.6% 7.30/" 3.9% 00% 3.9% 26% 6.7% 1,.30/o
Total Responses 7000% LOO.O/" roo.o% L00.0% loo o% LOj.0% r000% t00.0% L000% LOO.0%
Page 83 of 147 Page 84 of 147 Anuùxß Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
Field summary tor q1501695386323
Do you have additional ideas or concerns that haven't been addressed?
Answer Gount Percentage Answer 93 49.47"/" No answer 95 50.53%
ID Response
24 High Density Family Units and Traffic flow through Brentwood. l've been a resident of Brentwood since I985. I'm all for progress in our community BUT too many multiple family units have been constructed in the past few years that have increased traffic flow through Brentwood. I really don't think the traffic circle has added any real benefit. Like to see a turning lane on the corner of West Saanich and Wallace Drive (heading south on west saanich) in front of Fairways - currently there is a parking spot.
13 I strongly believe live aboard vessels lN MARINAS are an asset to the marinas and the community. Marinas with live a boards typically have the boats hooked up to sewage systems. Live a boards outside of the marinas, particularly right outside the park entrance are typically run down boats dumping sewage overboard. Additionally, there are no navigable channels into Anglers marina as boats are now blocking them. As we can't stop people from living aboard on their own anchors and buoys, I believe that they need to be monitored for sewage complìance. Þ That the idea of LNG in the Saanich lnlet is even being considered!?? This is an insane, shortsighted idea that is absolutely no good for any community on either side of the water. Central Saanich council musi speak out against this project and I am dismayed to see that at least two of our councillors "LlKE" Steelhead LNG. 8 Suggest looking at option of having harbor master to monitor and regulate activity in the Bay, charging fee for use of mooring cans and have boat owners keep log of sewage disposal. 20 Noise Pollution is the number one issue that Central Saanich needs to address both on the road and on the water. lt is obtrusive. 9 nobody enforces the parking so whats the point ? 10 1. Boats anchoring in Tod lnlet are also an issue. Anchoring should not be allowed as it does not allow for eelgrass and other marine plants important to the marine ecosystem to regenerate. There could be a small number of mooring buoys for visitors to tie up to for one night each and after that, boats would need to move elsewhere. 2. Speeding along Brentwood Drive - I walk regularly along Brentwood Drive and there is no shoulder along most of it. There is a 30 km/hr zone where there are sharp bends and poor visibility but I regularly see vehicles driving 50 to 60 km/hr along that stretch. I don't feel safe walking at times. 3. More walkway access in Brentwood Bay would be appreciated. Unfortunately when the waterfront was developed, there were too many private waterfront properties developed. At least we have Saunders Land and the Port Royale walkway. lt would be nice if there connected with something other than Brentwood Drive. 4. Noise from Butchart Gardens fireworks - I have lived in Brentwood Bay for 33 years and have been frustrated by the noise every Saturday night in the summers. I've always had dogs and/or cats that are terrified of fireworks and am concerned for all wildlife and pets in the area. 11 As a resident of Central Saanich I find it quite difficult to enjoy the lnlet side of our District. Partially due to parking, but as well as beach access, shoreline restaurants, and lack of information of pathways and public areas on that side of the District. 21 Residential parking only on Brentwood Drive. The live aboards do not pay any property taxes, can get a mooring buoy for $2500 and that is the total cost of setup. This is a municipal, provincial and federal issue and should be dealt with swiftly. 17 Regulate the number of buoys...with some sort of licensing or permit to ensure the anchors are strong enough and in good condition. This permission should include proof of insurance in case of a breakaway causing damages to others. 22 None 50 The usage of the Brentwood/Mill Bay Ferry has been steadily increasing over the years. The parking (or lack there of) has become a big issue in the area. People are leaving their cars on the road in front of businesses and in small residential cul de sac's to walk on to the ferry, page 40 I 48
Page 85 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
leaving them overnight & some for days/weeks at a time. Ihis has a negative impact on the community for many reasons. Safety. Often people are frustrated at the ferry wait and driving dangerously in area's where there are many children, pedestrians, cyclists etc. This also takes away from the tourism and recreational users that want to simply park for a few hours to enjoy the beautiful scenery of Brentwood Bay. 26 Sewage release from vessels is just one of the sources of pollution in the inlet waters. I'd like to see some effort put into cleaning up the numerous storm water drains and other exit points into the inlet. Most of these are obvious in the winter months when water is running, and easily spotted by the bright green algae color and strong smell. Options could be explored, including collecting and treating water, eliminating fertilizers, creation of artificial estuaries to filter the water naturally, etc
It would be nice to see support for habitat restoration of streams, eel grass beds, and other former features that have deteriorated over the years in the inlet. Removing sunken vessels is just one piece of that puzzle. I believe some of these programs exist already, but it would be nice to see them all come together in a collective manner for restoration of the inlet. ( a longer term goal) 37 Full disclosure, I don't own a boat so I can't speak to how busy the bay and inlet are in terms of marine traffic. I do think that there needs to be strict controls surrounding the dumping of sewage into the inlet, and I do think that dedicated moorage for visitors sounds like a great idea.
ln terms of money, I am fine with upping the spending to control sewage and wasle in the bay. After this, I would prefer to see our money continue to go towards smart development in the
District; i.e. continuing to densify the village centers while protecting the farmland around it. I am a big fan of this approach to growth. Keep up the good work. 28 Some of the boats are more like homeless camps and the people who live there row dingy's onto the beach at the bottom of Clark Road. I can't take my kids there anymore because they seem like unsafe people. Possibly mentally ill or addicted etc. While I have compassion for them, I also believe that residents should be able to feel safe in public places. 30 The overnight parking along Brentwood Drive, the garbage along Brentwood Drive, the erosion of the banks of Brentwood Bay due to King Tides and increased deer activity creating paths down to the bay and eroding the bank. 31 I think that the big issue of concern for all communities that share the Saanich lnlet is the floating LNG project that Steelhead and the Malahat First Nations is proposing. lt affects all of us and if that gets approvals to be built, in my opinion, none of these other items matter in the slightest. Our environment and the peace & beauty of Saanich lnlet will be lost forever. 32 No - over the last few years the place looks better than it did. 45 ïhe biggest issue for me is the knowledge of who owns any vessel so that when an issue occurs the owner is known. Accompanying thís need for licensing is the need for insurance it should be mandatory just as it is for autos. The lack of enforcement of existing laws is inexcusable 43 1) Lack of parking near the ferry dock. lt is a very high traffic area, with many people wanting to use the kayak launch for kayaks, canoes, and SUP's. Vehicles end up using commercial parking lots or parking unsafely on neighbourhood streets. 2) Lack of traffic direction for the Mill Bay Ferry. Many drivers don't understand the system of lanes or loading, and are unaware of the vessel's capacity. lt is impossible to get to businesses at the foot of Verdier Ave when the ferry is busy.
46 We have until Sept 30th to apply for federal funding to address the issue of derelict boats. I know the CRD has applied for funding but hoping individual municipalities can as well and hope the Central Saanich Municipality has looked into this. I know it will not solve the issue but will help educate and assess to further resolve the issue of abandoned boats in our region. 49 There needs to be a maximum stay for boats tied to buoys of 30 days 5l I think that it would be beneficial for the District to liaise with stakeholder groups such as the Sidney Anglers Association, who are concerned about habitat restoration and enhancement of our waterways so that recreational fishing may be enjoyed for generations to come. 53 Feel that Central Saanich should look at some of the steps currently being taken by the City of Victoria around a License of Occupation and only allowing short term moorage in the bay for visiting boats. 210 Unregulated mooring can installations in active water channels. 54 Yes. Speed, no trucks ,trucks of certain weight, are some of the signs you see posted even(dogs; pick up....,no dogs allowed and keep on leash) . What signs do we have on the water front? (Speed, garbage, droppings etc. An incomplete survey or maybe report is being done on
page41 I 48
Page 86 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
coliform count is being done by lsland Health on fresh and salt water. Two locations in Brentwood Bay (the new beach in Tod lnlet is missed), Langford Lake for its size gets two). Let's do a good report by CRD like the Wastewater one they did. Saltwater is complex and tide, tide level, temperature, date etc. Should all be recorded and recorded carefully. Maybe all of GV should be done by CRD. 60 There are many mooring buoys that have been dropped for the sole purpose of preventing others from mooring or anchoring even if only temporarily. This practice is just as big a problem regarding navigation and is or should be against the law. Legitimate yachtsmen and travelers should not be denied access to safe moorage by this practice. All mooring buoys should be registered and used regularly or removed. 72 no 66 Yes The placement of crab and shrimp traps in navigational waters where the movement of vessels is required to access certain areas such as harbours, coves and private docks. 68 lmpaired boaters is a problem. Saw several near accidents during fireworks evening. Kayaks power boats all jamming together, people partying, seemingly lacking in boating skills. 70 The parking restrictions for people wishing to use the beaches during the day at Willis Point are overly restrictive. Public intoxication is an issue among people living on boats. I have experienced this as a beach goer and liquor store retail worker. 75 As a Communinty we should be promoting Brentwood bay as a mooring hub. These are very protect¡ve waters for our region. Boater are very enviromentally friendly and respectful of the water. They live mostly on solar and wind power, and use very small quanities of water. Federal law already dictates that black water holding tanks are mandatory, and its a federal violation to no have the system locked while in our waters. Boaters are a major benifit to the local economy as they walk for services and provisions. The money they spend goes directly into the Brentwood bay economy. More mooring balls are needed and the community needs to promote this extremely valuable asset that promotes low inpact enviromental living. Brentwood bay is a safe haven during bad weather and pushing boaters out, places lives and emergency resouces at risk. Look at all the Caribbean islands and much of Europe, the tourism dollars that supporting mooring fields bring in has huge Micro-local economic benifits. ln shorl, mooring makes good economic scence, promotes environmental sustainablility, and sailboats are beautiful to look at. 81 Clean it up and make the bay more tourist accessable. Bring in revenue by holding eco tours and traditional native cultural tours etc ratjer than people spending money in victoria 79 Safe conduct of vessels in the Bay..... establish and enforce a 5 knot speed limit from a Line between Willis Point and Tsartlip. 80 Ihere should be a maximum amount of days that a vessel can be occupied and moored, anchored or otherwise in any given area, not unlike the rules in provincial campgrounds, unless they are unoccupied and have a registered mooring boy or are keeping there vessel at a marina or private dock. 84 Control of seaplane taxi route and specification of a no take off inside a line drawn between Willis Point and Henderson Point - the noise and smell of aviation fuel can be problematic to owners of houses along the shore before this point. 86 I would like to see at least one or two "free" Discharge pumping facilities in the bay for all vessels to have access to. Kick all the "pirates" out of the bay. they are thieves and have absolutely no respect for the community or the people who live in it. 89 No additional ideas or concerns, just want to in the strongest terms possible state that the unlimited moorage and derelict boat issue is going to only get worse as various locations around the coast get closed off to this sort of use. So the sooner it is strongly dealt with here, the better it will be.
The slow flush rate of this inlet makes it very susceptible to impacts by these issues and cleaner up is way more complicated and expensive than prevention.
88 Ihere are too many boats in Tod lnlet leading to excessive noise and pollution especially in the summer months during long weekend holidays.
Butchart Gardens should be asked to use noiseless fireworks on summer Saturday nights current fireworks are far too noisy disturbing the peace and frightening the wildlife.
More needs to be done to bring the fish and other wildlife back to the waters around Brentwood Bay. How about setting up spawning siles for herring as a way to attract predatory fish, birds and maybe even whales.
page 42 I 48
Page 87 of 147 Ouick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/a-herring-revival-spawnedlrom- the-depths-of -darkness/article5507 37 I
Also set up nesting boxes on the water for purple martins - the ones at Tod lnlet are very successful - these birds keep down bugs and are beautiful to watch and lo listen to.
ln summary cut back on development and boating; concentrate instead on restoring nature in our area. 90 Our community and services continue to be stressed by liveaboards who appear to contribute little or perhaps nothing, but rather have seemingly become adept at sliding between the cracks of government regulalion and individual responsibility. The number of moored vessels in the bay is unsupportable by any measure. 94 There is a law requiring vessels be equipped with holding tanks. This is not being enforced; consequenlly raw sewage is being dumped into Brentwood Bay and that is disgusting! 92 My family ( myself , husband and three children) used to walk our dog down to the bay a few times a week as it is a 5 minute walk from our house there's a small beach and we left the child's enjoy and explore and our dog swims but for the last little while we haven't gone there, due to concerns of the water quality from all the boats and waste, as well as the small beach area had broke bottles and garbage thereand also row boats just left on beach. lt is disappointing to see the place being treated that way. but in general if you give some thing to people for free and or set no rules it wouldn't be respected. lt is a terrible shame especially for the people that live in Brentwood Bay that they are no longer enjoying the beautiful spaces. We travel to other places outside of Brentwood bay to enjoy a clean and safer environment for our family. I would love to see a change as we all need respect other and the environment we live in. 95 Too much congestion on Verdier where ferry and local traffic converge. 102 Please stop ïhe sewage been dumped, protect the water 99 none 98 I cannot stress strongly enough my apprehension upon seeing the absolutely disgusting sight of all those abandoned vessels. Liveaboards should be policed much more than they are now, if they are policed at all now. I realize this takes more time and manpower than you have. Perhaps had this been done when this started there would not be all these problems now. Please I beg you for the future of the inlet, fix this problem. 108 Please act on these issues speedily! We have been wait¡ng a lot time to see these problems dealt with! 111 The waves beside & between the closely moored boats result in all moving tratfic into a very small space. lt is also very difficult to determine which boats are moving towards you quickly. ïhis is avery unsafe situation. The lack of parking for business users & ferry foot passengers over and above the local residents who wish to use the Bay for activities. 109 No 106 I find that coming and going from our Marina, Anglers Anchorage is quite quite stressful. From about Seanus I lsland in we have to be hyper aware, check for traps yes!! People don't awards use visible floats,kayakers 3 on the pofi side 2 on starboard, where's the ferry? Coming or going? Any seaplanes around? Prince of Whales? Ok the rock is off our port side, now we just have to wend our way through the moored boats. See any dingys on the move? No, good, the engine is running ai tick over not the best thing if a breeze comes up. l've got it lined up a straightforward clear palh between the boats/mooring bouys to the entrance of the marina. There must be more than 50 boats out here. My head feels like it's on a swivel. Check for the Butchart boats,kayaks, dingy's again, and there they are , just when you think you have a clear route, 3 paddle boarders zip out into the "Chanel" from behind one of the moorings, totally oblivious, earbuds in, zigzagging along , appearing to be totally unaware of what's behind them. Dang, is that guy doing yoga? ( I know there are many paddleboarders out there who are aware,courteous and cautious. But lhere are also many people who rent or purchase boards without any awareness of basic marine safety.). Just ask the Brentwood Bay ferry captains, we often hear 3-5 blasts from their horns, not gentle blasts, darned annoyed blasts. We live on the water near Anglers and I must say that noise does not appear to be a problem and I haven't noticed much garbage, I hope people are not dumping sewage, but they probably are. lt opens lots of questions, what do you do with your boal when it comes to the end of it's lifespan? ls it worth it to spend $4,000 a year for moorage for a boat that may only have a value of $9 or 10 thousand and rapidly depreciating. Can people choose to live an alternale lifestyle especially when they are on a fixed or low income? Housing is an issue . Look at the government docks at Fulford and in Ganges, as a transient boat it is difficult to find moorage there, and there are large numbers of derelict boats taking up that space as well are they insured? I doubt it. We would like to see
page 43 / 48
Page 88 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
respectful shared use for our beautiful Brentwood Bay, but we do need some controls on the moorings / seaworthiness of the boats moored out and I think perhaps proof of insurance should be the benchmark to be nrovided on an annual basis as a requirement for mooring permits would be the answer. 114 Accumulation of tenders/dingys ano ou ier craft on public beaches and beach accesses. 153 Very concerned with garbage accumulation on the reserve and the lack of adherence to building codes. New houses get built right in front of old ones that are abandoned. This is a safety hazard for children. Also why are houses allowed io have patio doors that do not lead oul onto a deck? This is very dangerous in my view. 115 Love to see the parking lot across from the lodge installed. Verdier needs a sidewalk on the north side of lower Verdier to the bus stop at Brentwood road A port authority Should be investigated. Also the federal vessel disposal program should be pursued for funding the assessment and removal. Live aboard should pay munciple taxe for their assessed value and require a parking permil. A second public dock should be considered for lower Verdier. Recent the Brentwood resort gated their dock, and the current government dock is under utilized. Central Saanich should also continue to fund to local volunteer royal Canadian Marine search and rescue unit who provides rescue response in the inlet, drowning prevention and safe boating programs. instaf I the sidewalk along Stellys asap, 120+ more homes means more traffic out citizens could be safer along this lmportant corridoor. Earthquake resiliency could be improved by putting the power under. Ground from Verdier and Stellys. Both the ferry terminal and boat ramp would probably be utilized in the even tif and earthquake. Establish Sean amid island as part of the southern gulf islands national park reserve or give it to tsarllip. Love to see a walking / riding trail through the my newton valley back to Brentwood on west Saanich (fully recognizing mt newton requires a pedestrian path as well). Continue partnership in remidationnofntodd inlet. 122 Vessel noise, vessel speed, shoreline restoration, environmental restoration, commercial fishing, tourism (economic growth), job creation opportunities, housing. 117 How stupid can they Gel? CS council takes away parking on Brentwood Drive, and now asks how to solve the lack of Parkingl! I don't like the idea of CS taking over authority for the Bay Other jurisdictions that have done this have taken out all the mooring buoys, then charge citizens exorbitant fees to use theirs. Port Moody and Bowen lsland come to mind. lt's just a money grab and giving in to a few waterfront and marina owners who feel entitled to control of the waterfront. Marinas have partially caused the proliferation of mooring buoys by charging exorbitant fees. There must be olher ways to stop the dumping of holding tanks or discharge of sewage into the Bay. Get the federal government to change the regulations. Navigation channels should be marked with a few bouys to ensure access to marinas and watefront properties. Boats are a beautiful addition to the Brentwood Bay waterfront views. Most countries' waterfront are public property, for public access. Let's not become like the US, where many bays are private and the boating public are kept out. Boating should not be only for the wealthy! 120 We have submitted letters to CS suggesting that they establish a mooring "grid" which could be revenue neutral by chargung a mooring fee to cover costs. Once established, all olher moorings would have to be removed. To "rent" a mooring from CS, the vessel would have lo be insured, so anyone uninsured would have to go elsewhere or bring their boat up to standard and get insurance. Also we strongly recommend CS establish a "liscence of occupation" so they could enforce the rules including the MOT harbour speed limit of 4 knots. 118 Limit the number of permanent moorings permitted in the bay. Charge for their use, inspect them annually and monitor for abuse. Fine violators. Enforce harbour speed limits to MOT standards out to the municipal water boundary. Allocate a space for visitors 1o anchor and limit the time to say 5 days. 121 Thank you for making some process with are beautiful bay. I hope it's not to late it . Portside marina is almost completely live aboards. We watch some of these boat untie go out into the bay for 5 minutes and then come back to tie up. The only reason we can think of is to dump the holding tank. ln Anacortes WA live aboards we're told, are required to display a receipt of prove they are pumped once a week and the marina charges this to the monthly moorage rates. Seems like a great solution for sewage. lf they have no holding tank they can not live on their boats. Abandoned crab traps is also a concern ln the states you can not crab on Monday Tuesday and Wednesday so if a trap is spotted you are incoraged to pull it as it's most likely abandoned. This law keeps their waters much safer as well as the crabs and prawns are more plentiful. 126 Authorities also need to continue consultation with Isaftlip and need to ensure that any new Bylaws or regulations do not try to supersede or infringe on the Douglas treaty rights of the
page 44 I 48
Page 89 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723 'Navigating the lssues'
WSANEC People's and specifically that of the Tsaftlip First Nation. 123 lssue of whether vessels are insured. lssue of whether vessels have holding tanks. 130 Vessels on bouys in the bay some w barges of junk attached need to be checked for holding tanks. There are too many junker that been to be pulled away.. Some have registered numbers to follow up on for last owner.. Owners need to be responsible for leaving junk there. Willing to help you sort this out.. my boat is moored at paid dock in the bay. You do not need to recreate a new system.. learn from others in the region who are dealing w this. 1s1 Boaters that currently have moorings in Brentwood Bay have invested considerable money in installing and maintaining them and many will not be able to afford or find alternate moorage. 133 Accesslbility to docks, stores, and shorelines and beaches - for people with wheelchairs, walkers, strollers as well as the'normals' Lack of accessible footpaths and bus stops Lack of accessible parking/handicapped parking both in town and at Marinas Public dock - pier - can't use power wheelchair safely - wheels could go through the slots Traffic lineups at the ferry that block businesses, cars Lack of a boardwalk - should go from Butchart to Stelly's Beach Noisy float planes taking off and landing (plus the pollution) Noisy helicopters at 4 am and other strange hours Lack of water taxis for people who visit by boat, or who want to access different places such as Butchart, McKenzie Bite, Bamberton camping Lack of ways to bring boaters into the village and beyond to spend their $ here vs just at the tourisi destination. E.g trolleys, footpaths, pedi-cabs, transit, Noisy fireworks at Butchart that cause pollution. They are fun, but maybe they could switch to a laser show? Lack of awareness about the pending doom of the LNG plant.. lt is still a goJoruard but nobody realizes that. We are all bickering about derelict vessels, when the elephant in the room is there will be 3 floating platorms, blasting out noise at 100 debibals, w¡th a yet- unknown explosion blast zone, and dumping so much crap into the inlet, the waters will never recover. We could turn part of this bay into a marine sanctuary - that would better serve all than arguing about harbour management and it could atlract more tourist $. A harbour authority might be a good idea...not sure on that.
134 Neighbourhood security?? Boaters wandering through the streets of Brentwood Bay using public services and they do not pay taxes for the services. 145 Most boaters are responsible operators. The means needs to be created or funded if already in place, to respond to irresponsible behaviour quickly and effectively 140 As watedront owners, we are taxed 4/5 times what people with like sized properties across Ìhe road, or elsewhere in central saanich pay!!! lf they had unsightly vehicles or yards, in their neighbourhood, they could call the bylaw otfice, and get some satisfaction!! For us our view, and the pollution of the water is in our front yard!! Something NEEDS to beDONE about itl!!!! 136 The bay should be considered a multi purpose and multi user area and not the private reserve of waterf ront householders 137 Anglers Lane should not be a two-way street. lt ¡s loo narrow to support such a use. lt should either be one way or closed to traffic. lt is also a blind corner and potentially dangerous for children playing and pedestrians. Too many vehicles try to make the corner when they are moving too fast or are too large to be able to make it without taking down the no parking sign, or a chunk of hedge. 139 The Brentwood Bay waterfront should be a resource/asset for members of the broader community, not just those who are fortunate to live along the shore. There is need for more kayak launches, beach accesses, parking, etc, for people who come from other parts of the municipality and beyond. 147 Mandatory pump out evidence once per season (invoice from pumping out) like the CRD Septic Field program. Keep it simple to keep costs down. Mandatory registration of vessels in order to be moored within defined area Mandatory Holding tanks for boats over certain size to be moored within defined area. Limit number of mooring buoys - transition or grandfather existing ones. Partner with existing pump out facilities to provide cheap pump outs - no need to build a third one in our area.
page 45 I 48
Page 90 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
't46 Lack of proactive bylaw enforcement by municipality. They respond only to complaints. Floating docks and multiple boats rafting lo them. Abandoned floating docks extremely hazardous at dusk and later. Construction work on moored vessels with waste ¡nto water. (sawdust, paint, varnish, etc.) At times very abusive and threatening language from some occupants of moored vessels to residents. 143 My boat has been hit and damaged twice by uninsured boats that have been moored insecurely in Brentwood Bay. I believe that it should be mandatory for boats anchored or moored in the bay to be licensed and insured. The insurance should cover third party liability, and the cost of clean up of sunken or grounded vessels, or vessels that are a pollution threat. lt is not reasonable to expect the public to bear this cost for boaters. Virtually all marinas around the world, and many public moorage areas in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand require this type of insurance. 148 Not at this time. 2'11 I would like to see a similar survey regarding sidewalks and lighting. Also quite concerned about the increase of crime in the area. 154 Live a boards should be Allowed and regulated at marinas. Eviction notices were sent out at our marina to the current legal live a boards : it forces out people to drop a buoy and no access to fresh water and pump out facilities. Those live aboards are part of the community and parl of our security at the marinas. No security system can replace the presence of people, and the are the first responders in case of required assistance. 204 lf live aboards are forced off the water we are not dealing with the real issues of the homeless on the bay. I would rather see support for making holding tanks affordable and simple to install and supporting the community on the waler to live on their boats without dumping gray and black water. Iod lnlet is also a concern, as dumping is most likely happening there as well. Now that the beach is restored, there are many more recreational swimmers who are at risk. Making the entire Saanich lnlet a no dumping zone with enforcement attached would be a good step forward. Thank you. 155 lncreased foot traffic up marchant from dock by Blues Bayou Cafe.... need additional security patrols. Wonder if private landowners each had own webcam for their own property, then Saanich provided a website on which live feeds could be streamed (posted to site on a voluntary basis by landowners) we could augment physical blockwatches supported by CSPD liaisons and blockwatch volunteers could sign up for "shifts" watchinq the community landowner feeds usinn e cimnlc eoordinative epp? I I ..- ¡' -l 171 You should note that I am a resident of North Saanich 159 Yes, I believe the vast majority of complaints come from wealthy property owners who resent people living at low cost in "their neighbourhood". My wife and I live aboard on a very nice, well equipped power yacht several months a year in Brentwood Bay and am very familiar with the environment. I have seen little evidence of garbage on the shoreline (at least anything different from the refuse that washes up on all our local beaches) , and what there is, given that the prevailing winds blow from the wesVnorthwest, there's no way to determine if the occasional chunk of trash came from a boat in the Bay or blew in from Saanich lnlet. And without extensive testing it's impossible to say if pathogens are polluting the Bay, or if boats are the source of any such contamination. I would also be very curious to know what kinds of chemical contaminants leach into the bay from surrounding properties, as well as through storm sewers etc.
As far as safely navigating into the Bay, I've had no problems getting in and out to Angler's Marina with my 50' yacht to fill up with fresh water every tvvo weeks, and I've also witnessed vessels over '1 00'work their way in and out the marina on a regular basis. Even floatplanes regularly pass between Butchart Gardens and Saanich lnlet without difficulty.
We lived for 7 years aboard at Fisherman's wharf in Victoria's inner harbour, and Brentwood Bay is much quieter. We don't like noise, and not once have we been disturbed by raucous parties/music. ln fact, if there's noise, more often than not it comes from folks enjoying themselves on their docks, which I don't condemn them for ai all. As far as derelict vessels go, I understand that less than 10% of the vessels in the Bay fit this criteria (two are next to me, and they shouldn't be, as the owner is trespassing on someone's buoy), so that's hardly a huge ìssue.
My biggest concern is that this is largely a class issue, where wealthy landowners resent sharing their viewscape with others who didn't spend millions for the privilege, as they did Social research has shown us that the wealthy prefer to segregate themselves and create
page 46 I 48
Page 91 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
exclusive enclaves where they don't have to encounter people outside of their elite class. That's easy enough on land, where property values keep the riff-raff out, and bylaws prevent people from squatting or living alternative lifestyles nearby. But liveaboards are the one exception where people of either limited means or alternative values prefer 1o live simply right under the noses of the powerful and wealthy, and the latter resent it enormously. An example of this attitude was evident at the public meeting at the library - I read on a white board a comment where one resident complained about how much he has to pay, while we live for free. He chose an extremely complex, expensive lifestyle while we chose simplicity and low impact, and yet his solution seems to be to remove our opt¡on, not his.
People also assume we are degrading the natural environment, without any evidence, and yet hypocritically refuse to acknowledge the impact of suburbia, of their own homes, on the natural environment. Awhile ago we were looking for parking for a motorhome in James Bay, and when we went to Robbin's Parking the clerk was very concerned that we weren't going to live in it. They had a lot of complaints, he told me, because someone was living there for awhile. I knew of that person. I figured he was living there because we were nearby neighbours and there was often a scooter parked outside the motorhome. That was the limit I ever saw to the impact he had on the neighbourhood. I mentioned this to the clerk, and he told me that the one guy kept calling, telling him that he had paid over a million dollars for his condo and yet he had to look down at "that." The motorhome had a right to be there regardless (it was a public parking lot), so it wasn't the motorhome that offended the complainant, but that he knew someone was living in it for $60.00 a month, in "his" neighborhood.
I believe this kind of class warfare ls rampant, and in gg% of the time, the rich and powerful win. They cleared people out of the Gorge waterway in Victoria for the same reasons as the complaints here, and yet I never saw any verified evidence that those boaters were polluting, littering, or damaging the environment (for which there are already bylaws). People SAY they did, but those people had an agenda of clearing out the bottom-class marginalized individuals that lived there so they could own the view for themselves. I'm deeply, deeply concerned that the same kind of complaints listed above are merely a pretext for clearing away us liveaboards so the rich and poweful can again lay claim to the landscape. 163 We need to ensure that there is no heavy industry such as floating LNG in Saanich lnlet. Local governments including First Nations need to take a stance against the Steelhead proposal.
174 I am concerned that the affordable sailing opportunity for our young family will be comprimised because of problems caused by few Marinas have become unaffordable due to u.s. Property tax laws. Homelees types have infested our precious places causing undue cost and stress on hardworking tax payers. We've seen this problem before. Brentwood bay is abeautiful unique place. We should be encouraging responsible behaviour and punishing bad. A strict holding tank bylaw would be a bare minimum. A yearly fee to'moor' would be great as long is it is affordable ( $1 a foot per foot would be about right) lhe fee would force one to a, register the vessel and b, have it in a seaworthy state. " floaty shantys" should definately be dealt with but i'd hate to lose my lifestyle to the rich , or lose my house in a legal quagmire should my boat have an unavoidable mishap ( like a broken mooring or the like ) many of us have had a respectible vessel in brentwood bay for some time. I'm sure i'm not the first with concerms but i am one of the concerned. Thx in advance, for your time.
165 Transport Canada and Provincial Government should also be involved. Derelict boats should not be removed at the cost of tax payers, but at the cost of the boat owner and should be fines for dumping sewage into water.
Amazed at the increase of vessels in the Bay in the past year. Difficult to manoeuver when kayaking.
176 Marina user parking on the streets close to marinas is critical - we live close to Portside i many days in the summer I can not get out of my driveway because marina users are parked on my narrow lane - please ensure all development has adequate parking. I would also like to mention that the proliferation of ugly backlit signage in the Brentwood Village is terrible - we have design guidelines that should protect us from looking like a strip mall - please, please keep Brentwood Village and the ferrylMoodyville commercial area looking attractive.
page 47 / 48
Page 92 of 147 Quick statistics Survey 853723'Navigating the lssues'
208 There is a newly parlially sunken vessel near the U22buoy in Brentwood Bay. Based on the visible condition of many currently moored vessels in Brentwood Bay, future sinkings (and associated cleanup costs) are expected. lt is imperative that action is required to remove liveaboards, unsafe and channel-obstructing vessels and nuisance dinghies (currently stored on Brentwood Bay's limited beaches and government dock space. Sewage dumping into the Bay should also cease. 177 The number of derelict boats moored in the waters of the Saanlch lnlet, N. Saanich, (around the Saanich Peninsula) is out of control. Also, the trapping of Crab and Prawns have greatly diminishing those stocks. There have been significant drop in numbers in the past few decades. I feel there needs to be far greater policing in this matter. Perhaps put the policing in the hands of concerned citizens. lf there are traps out on the water certain days of the week, it would be our civil duly to pull them out. People that are setting these traps need to be far more responsible...there are too many and they are ahazard to wildlife and boaters. Our salmon stocks are dwindling, clam beds are fewer and fewer...we must always look at the big picture...not what might suit us today or this generation...we need to be stewards of this great earth for the generations to come. Ïhank you. 178 Every boat should be registered and insuredl 195 I like the idea of liveaboards but some sort of accountability needs to be maintained. The folks that just leave their boats, garbage and sewage for some one else to take care of is my biggest concern '180 At one time the government dock was the place for visiting boats to dock. Currently, due to the large number of dinghies that are moored day and night, contrary to Central Saanich's bylaw, visiting boaters are not able to moor here. lf the bylaw was enforced, it would go a long while to providing moorage for visitors. There are also spots for moorage at the local marinas. To me, this is no different than those individuals who choose to travel in campers and RVs. lf you choose an alternate mode of travel, you must be prepared to cover your own costs. Re: funding for long{erm solutions - there are already bylaws that would eliminate all of these problems. The bylaws just need to be enforced. I do not believe that there would be any more substantial cost to this enforcement. Re: the holding tanks. This came into effect in 2007, with a 5 year grace period for installation. Any responsible boat owner installed a holding tank within this period. Other boat owners did not - and they seem to be rewarded for their lack of responsibility by people doing nothing about it. This is just not a fair, consisteni way in which to deal with such a significant problem as raw sewage! 187 Consider turning the lights off at the dock on Verdier on Saturday nights during the summer so the locals can watch the Butchart Gardens fireworks. lt seems like a waste of hydro as well! 201 Sewage in the water should be the primary concern. Enforcement of large fines for anyone who dumps sewage within Saanich lnlet will reduce and hopefully eliminate the problem. An easily accessible pump out dock should be provide if one doesn't already exist. As it is difficult to monitor the public needs to be the one reporting incidents as some boaters will dump sewage in the middle of the night. Signage in the area on land and in the bay that sewage dumping is prohibited and how to report an incidence will help with public enforcement and awareness. 200 Responsibility is an issue. The channels for all marinas are compromised and evidence has been provided but no one is assuming responsibility. The ad hoc positioning of moorings and overcrowding as live aboard(s) move north from Oak Bay and Gorge locations due to pressure from other municipalities is having an effect on water safety and quality. These are our waters, not Dept of X and we benefit or will pay the price for clean up. We have already seen that the cost to remediate a sinking boat is MUCH more expensive than being proactlvely responsiblel 203 ln the event of a police incident on a vessel in Brentwood Bay or any other area on the shoreline of Central Saanich, do the municipal police have jurisdiction or is it RCMP? To my knowledge, Central Saanich Police do not have a boat. 205 Having an accessible pump out available would be helpful. lt is disappointing that more places don't have them available and the ones that do appear to charge far more than is necessary.
page 48 I 48
Page 93 of 147 Page 94 of 147 Brentwood Bay - Navigating The lssues Open House 17Aug22
Setting a Course Towards a Preferred Future
- Support the lndigenous Nations
- Herring & salmon came back to the Ba
- Municipality needs to apply for Licence of Occupation so our citizens can get control of everything in the Bay
- Whales in the Bay - Regulate boats, moorings and sewage in Bay - start licence system for boats to control derelicts
- Get jurisdiction locally so regulation can occur
- No sewage from boats allowed in Saanich lnlet
- Recovery of ecosystem, herring spawn and all the life that comes with it
- No sewage or run off fertilizers from houses on Brentwood Bay
Navigating lssues of Today (What Concerns You?)
Live aboard boats. Their sewage, aggressive animals & people
Parking - live aboards parking in residential areas for days/weeks at a time
Ferry traffic and people parking to walk on the ferry
Dumping sewage overboard. People play in that water
Too many mooring boys - unregulated
Allow regulated live-aboards
Address channel / watenruay concessions
Regulate buoys - charge annual fee
Undefined jurisdiction of the water and these issues
Keep water clean
Page 95 of 147 Regulation needed - buoys, live aboards, sewage
Too many boats in inlet
Water quality / ecosystem quality, ability to recreate on the water, maintain community feel, traffic around the dock
Water pollution
Ferry traffic - at last! - 2 staff hired by BC Ferries to tell cars not to block driveways, how many ferry sailings wait. Need proper signage for no-parking area, bike lanes need to be re-painted
Police need to enforce no-parking zones
Navigating lssues of Today (Your Positíve Experience)
My kids love swimming, paddle boarding & playing on the beach
Beautiful community with very friendly residents
Pollution in Bay, people putting in multíple buoys and owning multiple boats, using as a storage facility of boats and wharves result in all moving traffic being forced into small spaces - safety issues - SLOW DOWN Swimming Tod lnlet, kayaking, paddle boarding, great walking - move _? Boats with no holding tanks = pollution and health risks - if we go too far down this path we may not recover from it
Swimming not any more
I love fishing, swimming with friends, walking along the water and paddle boarding
Love walking around the Bay in early morning and swimming in the evening
The tranquility and marine life of the Bay from a paddle board and shore
Rowing my boat, swimming and reflections in the water
Page 96 of 147 Tell Us Your Story
- 1941 BF & salmon in Saanich lnlet
- 1970's fish still in Bay
- 1980's renting boats & fishing in Brentwood Bay
- 1950's swimming, fishing, water skiing off publíc dock
- 1999 California seals on marina dock
- 1950's catching young Coho (Blue Backs) off Willis Point side with fly rod, spinner, and polar fly
Any Other Thoughts!!
User pay system similar to the roads (eg. rego, insurance, buoy parking fees)
People that live on the water pay for higher taxes, and if they have docks or boat ramps, pay a tax for that plus a water usage fee. Boat people have equal access to views and swimming but pay nothing!!
License all boats
People who live on the water choose a simple, non-consumption life style and have a far, far smaller environmental impact than the massive homes crowding the shore. Our environment is still viable - their environment is paved, covered in lawn, and have massive houses on them. Who is the destructive lifestyle?
Liveaboards are okay provided they do not dump that sewage and garbage in the waters we all use
Page 97 of 147 Page 98 of 147 Appendix C
Town of Ladysmith Sponsored Resolution to Association of Vancouver lsland Municipalities RlO - "Abandoned and Derelict Vessels"
20L2.O4.LL
PURPOSE The purpose of this briefing note is to prepare Council members for discussion on the following resolution at the Association of Vancouver lsfand Municipalities convention.
RlO REMOVAL OF DERELICT & ABANDONED VESSELS FROM COASTAL WATERS Ladysmith
WHEREAS derelict and abandoned vessels in the waters of coastal British Columbia can pose a threat to the aesthetics, environment, health and safety of coastal communities;
AND WHEREAS the current regulatory regime for the removal of derelict and abandoned vessels from the waters of coastal British Columbia is not serving our communities with effective and timely removal of such vessels:
THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED that the Association of Vancouver lsland and Coastal Communities call upon the federal and provincial governments to implement a Derelict Vessel Removal Program modelled after the Washington State program, and to designate the Canadian Coast Guard as the receiver of wreck in the case of every abandoned or derelict vessel in the waters of coastal British Columbia.
KEY ISSUES o Some of BC's coastal waters have become 'dumping grounds' for abandoned vessels and infrastructure. Examples include: o the five barges that were brought to Chemainus Harbour for use in the Chemainus Quay development and then abandoned when the project was discontinued o the abandoned vessels in Ladysmith's 'Dogpatch' o the former Hood Canal bridge from Washington State that was towed to Cowichan Bay and left there o the large sinking vessel in Cowichan Bay
Page 99 of 147 a Jurisdiction overthe abandoned vessels is unclear - theytend tofallthrough the cracks in terms of a lead agency to take responsibility for removing the vessels. o The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans willtake action when the vessel poses a 'threat to navigation' or an environmental emergency; this is often after damage has been done a Various state governments in the United States are making efforts to address this issue, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency is coordinating a national approach with research and planning. a Ladysmith's resolution cites Washington State's Derelict Vessel Removal Program. Proglram hi{,hli!,hts are: o Reimbursement of up to 90% of the cost of removal and disposal o Remaining IOo/o of the cost can be in the form of "in-kind" services o Authorized public entities not able to undertake the removal of a derelict vessel may ask the state Department of Natural Resources to assume the lead o Priority for the use of funds is for vessels in danger of breaking up, sinking, or blocking a navigational channel, or vessels that present a risk to human health, safety or the environment o Program is funded through an additional $3 fee placed on annual vessel registration fees and an additional $5 fee added to the cost of obtaining a non-resident vessel permit fee. The DVRP also can accept donations. o Organizations who are authorized to carry out the removal and receive reimbursement are the state Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation Commission, metropolitan park districts, port districts, cities, towns, or counties with ownership, management, or jurisdiction overthe aquatic lands where the vessel is located.
AVICC RESPONSE TO I.ADYSMITH RESOLUTION o Delegates at the AVICC convention will be provided with the following comments from the AVICC Resolutions Committee on the Town of Ladysmith resolution:
The Resolutions Committee notes that the membership has previously considered and endorsed two resolutions regarding derelict and abandoned vessels. Resolution 2005-81-l-2 called for the federal government to remove any derelict vessel left unoccupied in a harbour for more than six months upon request of the community, and resolution 201-0-B3O called on the provincial and federal governments to develop a coordinated approach to removal of derelict and abandoned vessels, barges and docks.
The Provincial response to the 2OIO resolution indicated in part that "The Ministry recognizes that the multi-jurisdictional nature of managing abandoned vessels is a key challenge when resolving these issues" and that a working group was established to explore options and address this issue. Working group membership includes provincial ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Transport Canada, lslands Trust and UBCM.
The Federal response to the 2005 resolution indicated in part that "the current
¡ -. ,1,
Page 100 of 147 UBCM Resolutions regarding Derelict Vessels
2005 B1-L2 - Harbour Protection - Derelict Vessels
Sponsor: Ladysmith
WHEREAS the Town of Ladysmith has made several appeals to the provincial and federal governments to remove derelict vessels from Ladysmith harbour;
AND WHEREAS there has been no action to date by either the provincial or federal governments to enforce removal of derelict vessels from Ladysmith harbour;
AND WHEREAS the risk of environmental contamination and the aesthetic blight posed by derelict vessels is of concern to all coastal communities affected by this issue:
THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED thatthe Union of British Columbia Municipalities strongly recommend to the Province, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard that immediate action be taken by them to remove any derelict vessels that have been unoccupied for a period of six months or longer from the harbours of any communities requesting such action.
ProvÍncial Response
Federal Response
FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA ILiberal Government] Resolution BII2, forwarded by the Town of Ladysmith, asks DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard to remove derelict vessels from harbours in British Columbia once such vessels have been unoccupied for six months
Convention Decision: Endorsed as Amended
2OLO B3O - Derelict & Abandoned Vessels, Barges & Docks
Sponsor: AVICC Executive
WHEREAS UBCM has previously endorsed a resolution on the topic of derelict vessels in 2005 and the issue of derelict and abandoned vessels, barges, and docks continues to be of significant concern and cost for local governments and harbour authorities in British Columbla;
AND WHEREAS there are many derelict and abandoned vessels, barges and docks that pose safety hazards, risks of environmental contamination and visual pollution:
THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED that the UBCM petition the provincial and federal governments to develop a coordinated approach to the timely and adequate removal of all types of derelict and abandoned vessels, barges and docks in allsituations and considerthe following strategies:
Page 4 of 1-0
Page 101 of 147 legislation does not allow the removal of a derelict vessel unless it is a hazard to navigation underthe Navigable Waters Protection Act".
The Committee notes that the Washington State program may be challenging to replicate in BC, given the complex nature of the legislative framework for vessels in Canada along with shared federal, provincial and local government jurisdiction. However, the Committee also notes that providing responsibility for managing a derelict vessel program to one agency may help to facilitate removal of these vessels. a Note that the Town's resolution states "modelled afTer" the Washington state program, not "identical to"
PROJECT BACKGROUND' HISTORY o The UBCM has passed two previous resolutions on this topic - in 2005 and 201-0 (attached) o Jean Crowder, M.P. for Nanaimo-Cowichan, has initiated Bill C-231, a private member's bill intended to Amend the Canada Shipping Act, in the House of Commons (received first reading June 1-6, 2O1-L). The purpose of the bill is to designate a "Receiver of Wreck" (Canadian Coast Guard) and create regulations that would oblige the Receiver of Wreck to take action on any derelict or abandoned vessel, not just those that pose a hazard to the environment or to navigation
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS o UBCM Resolutions 2005 81,12 and 201-0 830 o Bill C-23I (Jean Crowder's' Private Member's Bill) o Bill C231, Backgrounder o News Release issued by Jean Crowder et al o Washington State Derelict Vessel Removal Program brochure
Page 102 of 147 Translate T Search here. .
PROGRAMSAND SERVICES ABOUT MANAGED LANDS EMPTOYMENT
Home I Aquatics
District and Land Manager f¡ap
Aquatic Leasing and Licensing
Habitat Conseruation
Derelict Vessels
Derelict Vessel Background
Bid on Removal Contracts
Notices of lntent
Derelict Vessel lnventory
Vessel Requirements Recovering Derelict Vessels CONTACTS
Vessel Turn-ln Program Troy Wood Derelict Vessel Removal Program Restoration 1111 Washington 5t 5E - MS Derelict or abandoned vessels put public safety and the health ofour marine and fresh 47027 Aquatic Assessment and waters at r¡sk. DNR's Derelict Vessel Removal Program is the state's key mechanism for Olympia, WA 98504-7027 Monitor¡ng Team addressing the problem of derelict or abandoned vessels in Washington's waters, and has 360-902-1574 been cited as a model for otherjurisdictions seeking to deal with the problem ofsunken or [email protected] Aquat¡c Science neglected watercraft.
Aquatic Stewardship Since the program was ¡nstituted in 2002, more than 580 abandoned or neglected vessels RELATED LINKS have been removed from Washington waterways. 5eaweed Harvesting DNR Links Derel¡ct Vessel Removal Thanks to a 54.5 million infusion from the Shellfish Program Legislature for the 201 3-1 5 biennium, DNR's Derelict Vessel Bidders lnfo Derelict Vessel Removal Program was able to Derelict Vessel lnventory and larger vessels were rtt remove several that I Funding threatening navigation and the environment. Vessel ïurnln These large, abandoned hulks included the Heleno Program Stdr (costing 51 ,176,324 to remove); the Murph, Derelict Vessel Program (5 $923,498), and The G o I d e n t4lest 5 94,068), I n Brochure PDF total, overthe course ofthe biennium, DNR worked Notìces of lntent to Obtaìn with ports and local governments to remove 100 Custody vessels. Other L¡nk Chapter 79.1 00 RCW - Derelict PREVE[{TION: ADDRESSIilG BOATS BEFORE THEY BECOME A PROBTEM Vessels In 201 4, DNR also instituted a new program to help owners of boats in disrepair voluntarily dispose of their boats before they become problems in the water. The Vessel Turn-ln RETATED FILES Program allows owners ofvessels less than 45 feet long to get rid ofthe¡r boats, ifthey cannot afford to dispose of it themselves. Vessels of Concern Reporting Form
In 201 3 and 2014, the Legislature established requirements that sellers of boats more than 65 feet long and more than 40 years old to have the vessel surveyed and provide the buyer and DNR with a copy ofthe survey. The seller must also requ¡re the buyerto show proofof insurance for the vessel.
Page 103 of 147 WORKING TO HEIP TOCAL AGENCIES REMOVE PROBTEM BOATS The following authorizing publ¡c entities may remove derelict or abandoned vessels within their ju risdictions:
. DNR . Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife . Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission . Metropolitan park distr¡cts . Port districts . Cities, towns, orcounties with ownership, management, or jurisdiction overthe aquatic lands where the vessel is located.
DNR can assist those entities in funding removal in the followíng ways:
. Reimbursement of up to 900/o of the cost of removal and disposal.
. Remaining 1 0olo ofthe cost can be in the form of "in-kind" servíces. . Authorized public entities not able to undertake the removal of a derelict vessel may ask DNR to assume the lead. Priority forthe use offunds is for vessels in danger ofbreaking up, sinking, or blocking a navigât¡onal channel, or vessels that present a risk to human health, safety or the environment. Providing guidance and ass¡stance to agencies.
For more information see the Derelict Vessel Removal Program Guidelines, Sample custody post¡ngs are available from DNR upon request.
CONTRACTING W¡TH DNR TO REMOVE DERETICT VESSETS Most of the work to remove and dispose of derelict and abandoned vessels on state-owned aquatic lands is done by private contractors. lnformation on bidding on derelict vessel removal contracts can be found here.
You can see a list of vessels cunently pending custody action here
Page 104 of 147 Appendix D Application for Establishment of a Designated Sewage Area under the Vessel Pollutíon and Dangerous Chemìcals Reguldtions
L. Applicant Information
The Corporation of the District Of Central Saanich 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 249
Primary contact: Ruth Malli- Manager of (Building and Plq nning) Phone: 250544 4500 local4500 E-mail: Ruth.Malli@csaanich.êá,' t
2. Description of the Bodv of Water
The waters and intertidalforeshore of Brentwood Bay and Tod lnlet, lying inside a line drawn from Sluggett Point at 48.5815' north latitude and 123.4703 west longitude to Willis Point at 48.5777 north latitude and 123.4876 west longitude. The red line on Map L (attached) shows the boundary of the area proposed for designatíon (the subject area).
The subject area is immediately adjacent to the District of Central Saanich, which is the largest community on Saanich lnlet with a current population of almost 17,000. The waterfront properties immediately adjacent to the subject area are primarily residential, with most commercial development being a block or more back from the waterfront.
Water based activities in the subject area include high levels of both recreational boating and liveaboard moorages. Tod lnlet is especially popular with recreational boaters due to its proximity to the Butchart Gardens, which holds weekly fireworks displays that may be viewed from Tod lnlet. Three commercial marinas operate within the subject area, two of which currently offer pump out facilities for the prope;l ditp::?! of sewage from vessels with storage tanks.
:.'. : :!. . Kayaking, paddle boarding and swimming are also popular activities within the subject area.
Shellfish harvesting is prohibited within the subject area as it falls within a year-round Sanitary Contamination Closure that covers all waters inside a boundary that extends from Henderson Point (the next point north of Sluggett Point) to Willis Point.
Page 105 of 147 3. Description of the Problem
Sewage discharge from vessels moored and operating within the subject area presents a risk of impact to the marine environment and a health risk to other users of the waters. The high level of use by both recreational boaters and permanent live-aboard vessels moored in the subject area creates the potential for significant levels of sewage discharge. Detailed tidal flow studies and modelling completed in 1996 indicate that the subject area has relatively poor flushing by tidal action due to several geographic factors and that inflow from freshwater sources (Hagen Creek and Tod Creek) are also insufficient to create good flushing action within the subject area. All of Brentwood Bay and Tod lnlet are under year-round shellfish harvesting closures due to sanitary contamination concerns. The subject area does not have any municipal sewage or industrial outfalls that would contribute to sewage contamination.
A recent inventory completed by the District of Central Saaniçh shows that there are currently over 100 moored items (mooring buoys, moored platforms/dock sections, anchored vessels) within the subject area. ln comparison, Montague Harbour Provincial Marine Park, which is already a Designated Sewage Area underthe Vessel Pollution ond DangerousChem.icals Regulotions, maintainsa totalof 40 mooring buoys for short term moorage use by park visitors.
Several factors may be contributing to sewage discharge from véisels within the subject area. Cost and convenience of discharging directly into the ôcean (rather than'using available pump out facilities) are likely the two most significant factors. Section 96 of the Vessel Pollution ond Dongerous Chemicols Regulotions allows for the discharge of untreated sewãge from vessels within 3 nautical miles of shore subject to specific conditions, but prohibits such discharge if a reception facility that can receive the sewage in an environmentallrT safe manner is available to ieceivé it. There are two pump-out facilities located within the subject area. However, not all vessels have sewage storage tanks, some permanent live-aboard vessels moored. within the subject area may not be capable of accessing pump out facilities (e.g. vessels are not powered) and sonle vessel owners may not be willing to wait to have their storage tanks pumped when facilities are busy and not i¡medíately available.
:a 4. Altefn?tive Options lnclusion of the.subject area in the list of De.signated Sewage Areas under the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemiicals Regulotions would help to manage the problem of sewage discharge by providing a very clear standar.d (no sewage discharge allowed) that will be more easily enforced than the terms under which sewage rìlay currently bq legally discharged (under Section 96 of the Vessel Pollution and Dongerous Chemicals Regulotions). Alternatives for improving compliance that have already been implemented include raising awareness of the problem within the local boating community, random inspections by enforcement agencies and ensuring that sewage pump-out facilities are available at local marinas. Another option that has been proposed is for the District of Saanich to hold a right to manage moorings within the subject area (outside of existing private tenures) through a licence of occupation issued by the Province. This option would allow the District of Central Saanich to control the number, location and terms for moorages. However, management of the subject area under a licence of occupation will require compliance and enforcement abilities that would be enhanced by having the subject area included in the list of Designated Sewage Areas under the Vessel Pollution ond Dongerous
Che mica I s Re g ulations.
Page 106 of 147 5.
A. List of Stakeholders Consulted: Stakeholder Contact lnformation Position on proposed designation Moored vessel owners Marina operators Adjacent property owners First Nat¡ons B.C. Yachting Council watersports assoc. (e.g kavaking,
B. Description of the Consultation Process - Consultationschedule - Methods used to invite public and stakeholder comments - Copies of all notifications sent to stakeholders - Minutes of all meetings with stakeholders (including on-line forum)
6. Benefits and Costs of Designation
Benefits: - lmproved ability to enforce a prohibition of sewage discharge from vessels within the area. At present, vessel owners may hold the view that they are discharging sewage in substantial compliance with Section 96 otthe Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicols Regulotíons (e.g. discharging while in transit and on an ebb tide, or perhaps argue that pump-out facilities may be so busy as to be considered unavailable). The clear prohibition of sewage discharge within a Designated Sewage Area will eliminate any ambiguity or misunderstanding for vessel owners and facilitate compliance and enforcement actions. - Significantly reduced levels of sewage discharge from vessels within the subject area will minimize potential health risks (e.g. fecal coliform exposure) to other users of the local waters. - lmpacts to the marine environment that are linked to sewage discharge (unnatural plankton blooms, low oxygen levels in surface waters) may be reduced. - Ability for First Nations to exercise treaty rights (e.g. shellfish harvesting) within the area may eventually be improved with an elimination of sewage discharge from vessels
Costs of Designation: - lncreased sewage disposal costs to vessel owners (via commercial pump out facilities) - Some liveaboard owners may not be able to comply unless a mobile pump out service is established in the area as their vessels may be unable to access a pump out facility based in a marina - Ensuring compliance within a Designated Sewage Area will require staff time and appropriate vessels to carry out compliance inspections and investigation of suspected non-
Page 107 of 147 compliance. A licence of opportunity held by the District of Central Saanich (discussed in Section 4 of this application) would provide an opportunity for cost recovery through annual moorage rental fees collected from vessel owners wishing to moor within the licence area. lnspection frequency and compliance and enforcement costs may be reduced over time if there is good voluntary compliance by vessel owners.
7. Enforcement of the VPDCR
Successful enforcement of a sewage discharge prohibition would likely require direct observation of a contravention. District of Saanich police, RCMP, Conservatíon Officers and other law enforcement personnel that are authorized to enforce the VPDCR will be advised of the Designated Sewage Area designation, to improve awareness should sewage discharge be observed within the area. District of Central Saanich may also prepare an application for a Crown land tenure over the area which would provide improved management over moorings, including an improved ability to enforce a sewage discharge prohibition and sewage holding tank requirements through terms of use agreements with vessel owners.
8. Communication Plan
Need to attach a general comm plan for raìsing awareness of the designation Need to attach a plan for notifying stakeholders (especially moored vessel owners) about the designation once it has been completed
9. Applicant Signature
Name
Organization:
Date:
Signature:
Page 108 of 147 Map 1- Proposed Designated Sewase Area
ch" e r
ts t \) o S trllt 1 Cro;: Ró
Ve¡disr A¡e (j¡rr¡al¡ll Vl¡v C!¡rl¡ Rd I ¿cr o,1,"!, = ú 5lúgoar:l ! I ç xl '4, cl ||ugh¡ñt I 'o rÍ, p¡ f I D +')ii".nc¡ F .Þ F È 'í;¡".0 "'.i: t I ôÞ-
"'o ".tl: ,o
\
Page 109 of 147 Page 110 of 147 Appendix E District of Central Saanich Proposed Application for a Nominal Rent Tenure for Transient and Livea rd Mooraee Purooses
Proposed Tenure location: The waters and foreshore of Brentwood Bay, as described below but excluding all existing tenures and established navigatíon corridors within the described area:
Point of Commencement on Willis Point at 48.5777 North, I23.47O3 West, then to Sluggett Point at 48.5815 North, 123.4703 West, then southerly along the natural boundary of Brentwood Bay to the boundary of Gowlland Tod Provincial Park, then northerly along the boundary of Gowlland Tod Park to the most northeasterly corner of Gowlland Tod Park, then along the shoreline of Brentwood Bay returning to the Point of Commencement. Containing approxímately 90 hectares. The proposed tenure boundary is shown on Map 1, attached.
Intended Land Use and Benefits of the Proposed Tenure: The intended land use for the application area is community use for both transient and permanent liveaboard moorage. The proposed use will be managed by District of Centralsaanich and will help to meet local moorage requirements in a manner that minimizes the impact of vessel moorings on the environment, commercial navigation, First Nations and recreational users of the waters of Brentwood Bay.
There are currently over 1OO vessels, floating platforms/dock sections and other objects moored on Crown foreshore (outside of private tenures or commercial marinas) within Brentwood Bay. There are rising local concerns associated with the high density of vessels permanently moored on the Crown foreshore including discharge of sewage, impacts on navigation and on other recreational users, vehicle parking and congestion at public beach access points and visual aesthetics. Management of the moorings in the Brentwood Bay is curr:ently reactive only (i.e. actions taken by Transport Canada only when moored vessels are clearly impeding navigation).
The proposed use will be non-exclusive and will accommodate both temporary visitors and permanent liveaboard vessels. Mooring buoys will be established in specifíc portions of the proposed tenure area, and will be made available for both temporary and permanent moorage, for a fee that will be collected by District of Central Saanich, or a contracted moorage operator operating on behalf of District of Central Saanich. Consistent with the terms of a nominal rent tenure, fees will be established by District of Central Saanich at a rate that allows for cost recovery only. Use of the proposed moorages will require agreement to terms of use established by District of Central Saanich. The terms of use may include provisions requiring the ínstallation of sewage holding tanks in all liveaboard vessels and prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage, except in local pump-out stations. Temporary (e.g. overnight) anchoring that does not impact on the operation of the tenure will continue to be allowed, but lnstallation of permanent mooring buoys within the tenure area by parties other than the District of Centralsaanich willimpact on the lawful use of the tenure and will not be allowed.
Consistency with Crown Land Allocation Principles: The proposed nominal rent tenure will ensure that Brentwood Bay is managed for a wide public benefit. At present, there is no management of moorings with the proposed tenure area and the high number of
Page 111 of 147 unauthorized moorings is beginning to create conflict between vessel owners, waterfront property owners and commercial and recreational users of the waters. Management of the tenure including enforcement of tenure terms by the District of Central Saanich will help to reduce environmental impact caused by improperly installed mooring anchors, ensure that permanent moorings do not conflict with established navigation corridors and will help to reduce or eliminate the discharge of sewage within the tenure area. Fees associated with public use of the moorings within the tenure area will be relatively inexpensive and will only be used to cover the costs of managing the tenure. Local First Nations are supportive of improved management of the proposed tenure area, especially the elimination of sewage discharge as the area is currently closed to allshellfish harvesting due to contamination. The District of CentralSaanich understands the non-exclusive nature of a nominal rent licence of occupation, and that the tenure area may be amended over time to accommodate higher value tenure applications such as expansion of commercial marina facilities.
An amendment to current zoning that would prohibit permanent moorings within the tenure area, except on moorings established by the Distr¡ct of Central Saanich for that purpose may also be consídered by the District to further reinforce management of the proposed tenure area.
Map 1- Proposed nominal rent tenure boundary in Brentwood Bay
\ | ,11
il\,lapBC Mapping Legend PþsnoislFåtu, Eæ Reler 2 ¡ ÀEes - All- Teñtãlis - Coþu
! Pemit fenuEs - lEnbl¡! - ( I Læñse Tenures -Tå¡lehs- I Rsserye ånd Not.tion rcnu' Cohur F¡lþd ! Ienures -TenblÉ-Colour r I ir lil : l7-ar' rl -l ÈluñE¡psl¡fes -ABllS-Ouf o l!rì ililS'ìû \'.
I ', I l)t ..,rr 1..
DlCfflr¡ 3.ufch 'r"'' 1:00fi) Ç CopyrighüÞideher
t
PbÞjm rlGS q WS \l!d( ) ^uÍa ol BnEh Columbrâ
Page 112 of 147 Ary-ndtv F
First Session, Forty-second Parliament, Première session, quarante-deuxième iégislature, 64 Elizabeth ll, 2015-2016 64 Elizabeth ll, 2015-2016
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES DU CANADA
BILL C-21 9 PROJET DE LOI C.219
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la marine 2001 (wreck) marchande du Canada (épaves)
FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 4,2016 PREMIÈRE LECTURE LE 4 FÉVRIER 2016
Ms. M¡lcollso¡r MME M¡LcoLtr¡sor,r
421',t02
Page 113 of 147 SUMMARY SOMMAIRE
This enactment amends lhe Canada Shipping Act, 2001 To Le texte modifie la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande du strengthen the requirements relating to wreck by ensuring that Canada afin de renforcer les exigences relatives aux épaves en regulations are made to establish measures to be taken for their prévoyant la prise de règlements qui établissent les mesures à removal, disposilion or destruction. lt designates the Canadian prendre pour l'enlèvemenl, l'aliénation ou la destruction de ces Coast Guard as a receiver of wreck for the purposes of Part 7 of épaves. ll désigne la garde côtière canadienne à titre de receveur the Act and requires receivers of wreck to take reasonable steps d'épaves pour l'application de la partie 7 de la loi et oblige les re- to determine and locate the owner of the wreck. ceveurs d'épaves à prendre des mesures convenables pour dé- terminer et local¡ser les propriétaires des épaves.
Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: Disponible sur le site Web du Parlement du Canada à l'adresse suivante http://M.parl.gc.ca http://www.parl,gc.ca
20'15-2016 648 z
Page 114 of 147 1 st Session, 42nd Parliament, 1'" session, 42" législature, 64 Elizabeth ll, 2015-2016 64 Elizabeth ll, 2015-2016
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES DU CANADA
B|LL C-219 PROJET DE LOI C.219
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande (wreck) du Canada (épaves)
2001, c 26 2001,ch 26 Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of Sa Majesté, sur l'avis et avec le consentement du the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, enacts as follows: édicte :
1 Subsection 154(1) of the Cønøds Shípping Act' 1 Le paragraphe 154(1) de la loi de 2001 sur Ia 2001 is replaced by the following: 5 tnø;rine ¡nølchønde du Csnqdø. est remplacé par 5 ce qui suit:
Ganadian Coast Guard designated Désignation de la garde côt¡ère canadienne I 54 (1) The Canadian Coast Guard is designated as a re- 154 (1) ta garde côtière canadienne est désignée à titre ceiver of wreck for the purposes of this Part. de receveur d'épaves pour I'application de la présente partie.
Designation Désignation (1.11 The Minister may designate any other persons or (1 .1) Le ministre peut désigner toute autre personne ou 10 classes ofpersons as receivers ofwreck. catégorie de personnes à titre de receveurs d'épaves.
2 Subsections 155(2) and (3) of the Act are re- 10 2 Les paragraphes 155(2) et (3) de la même loi placed by the following: sont remplacés par ce qui suit:
Locating owner Localisation du propriétaire (2) If wreck has been reported to or observed by a receiv- (21 S'il est fait rapport d'une épave au receveur d'épaves er of wreck, the receiver shall take reasonable steps to de- ou si ce dernier constate l'existence d'une épave, il prend 15 termine and locate the owner of the wreck, including þ terminer giving notice of the wreck in the manner that the receiver 15 et en localiser le propriétaire; il donne notamment avis considers most effective and appropriate. de la découverte de l'épave de la façon qu'il estime la plus effrcace et indiquée.
Taking measures Prise de mesures (31 Except in the circumstances described itt tggnl4llgtq (31 Sauf dans les circonstances prévues par règlement 20 made under subsection I63(L1), a receiver of wreck shall pris en vertu du paragraphe 1 63( 1. 1 ), le receveur d'épaves take measures, or direct that measures be taken, in ac- prend les mesures nécessaires - ou il en ordonne la prise cordance with those regulations in order to remove, dis- 20 - conformément à ces règlements Dour enlever, aliéner pose of or destroy wreck. ou détruire l'épave.
3 Section 163 of the Act is amended by adding the 3 L'article 163 de la même loi est modifié par ad- 25 following after subsection (1): jonction, après le paragraphe (1), de ce qui suit:
421102
2015-2016 64 Eliz ll
Page 115 of 147 An Act to amend the Canada Sh¡pping Act, 20Ol (wrcckl Loi ñod¡f¡ant la Lo¡ de 2001 su la marine mêrchande du Canada (épaves) Sect¡ohs 3-4 Art¡cles 3-4
Regulations - Minister and Minister of Fisheries and Règlements - ministre et ministre des Pêches et des Oceans Océans (1 .11 The Governor in Council may, on the recommenda- (1.11 Le gouverneur en conseil peut, sur recommanda- tion of the Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and tion du ministre et du ministre des Pêches et des Océans, Oceans, make regulations respecting prendre des règlements concernant :
(al the appropriate measures that receivers of wreck a) les mesures nécessaires que doivent prendre les re- are to take, or direct to be taken, to remove, dispose of s ceveurs d'épaves - ou dont ils doivent ordonner la 5 or destroywreck; and prise - pour enlever, aliéner ou détruire les épaves; (b) the circumstances in which the obligation to take bl les circonstances dans lesquelles I'obligation de measures under subsection 155(3) does not apply. prendre des mesures au titre du paragraphe 155(3) ne s'applique pas.
4 The Act is amended by adding the following af- 4 La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après 10 ter section 164: 1 0 l'article 164, de ce qui suit :
Report to Parliament Rappor^t au Parlement
Review and report by Minister Examen et rapport du ministre 164.1 Every five years, the Minister must review the op- 164.1 Tous les cinq ans, le ministre procède à I'examen eration of this Part and cause to be laid before each de I'application de la présente partie et fait déposer de- House of Parliament a report setting out the results of vant chacune des chambres du Parlement un rapport de 15 the review. 15 son examen.
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons Publié avec l'autor¡sat¡on du président de la Chambre des communes
2015-2016 648 z
Page 116 of 147 625 Fisgard St , CT¿T] Gapital Regional District Victoria, BC V8W 1R7 Måkhg å d¡fferen(e.- togelher
Meeting Minutes
Environmental Seruices Comm ittee
Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:30 AM 6th Floor Boardroom 625 Fisgard St. Victoria, BC V8W 1R7
PRESENT: Directors: R. Atwell (Vice Chair), D. Blackwell, C. Day (for C. Hamilton), L. Helps, W. Mclntyre, V. Sanders (for D. Murdock), J. Ranns, M. Tait, K. Wlliams, B. Desjardins (Board Chair, ex-officio) Staff: R. Lapham, Chief Administrative Officer; L. Hutcheson, General Manager, Parks and Environmental Services; R. Smith, Senior Manager, Environmental Resource Management; D. Green, Environmental Science Officer, Environmental Protection; B. Reems, Corporate Officer; P. Perna, Committee Clerk (Recorder)
REGRETS: Directors: M. Hicks and R. Windsor
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 am.
1. Approval ofAgenda
MOVED by Director Helps, SEGONDED by Director Mclntyre, That the agenda for the July 26, 2017 Environmental Services Committee meeting be approved as amended to add Delegation ltem 4.2. Gouncillor Gord Baird, Disûict of Highlands, Re: lnvasive Species. CARRIED 2. Adoption of Minutes
2.1. 17-571 Minutes of the June 28,2017 Environmental Services Committee Meeting
MOVED by Director Blackwell, SECONDED by Director Helps, That the minute¡ of the June 28,20'17 Environmental Services Committee meet¡ng be adopúed as circulaûed. CARRIED 3. Chair's Remarks
The Chair remarked on the lnvasive Species letters
4. Presentations/Delegations
4.1. 17-579 Delegation: John R. Roe Re: Agenda ltem 5.1. Abandoned and Derelict Vessels
J. Roe spoke in regards to abandoned and derelict vessels and what is involved in preparing an inventory, obtaining a workforce and volunteers to identify and inventory boats, and the process and legalities of boarding the boats.
C.ptþ, R€gron., DLtü'cl Pege I Pilnted on 8/11/2017
Page 117 of 147 Environmental Services Commitûee Meeting Minutes July 26,2017
M. Tait arrived at 9;35.
Discussion ensued on the following: - the issue and recycling of fibreglass - addressing houseboats - searching for sunken boats via diving and undenruater equipment - the role of the Dead Boat Society and utilizing them to obtain funding and to get the process started
4.2. ',t7-587 Delegation: Councillor Gord Baird, District of Highlands, Re: lnvasive Species
Councillor Gord Baird, District of Highlands, spoke to the request to house an lnvasive Species Coordinator under the Capital Regional District, He stated that there is a need to organize which species are a priority and which sites need to be addressed.
Discussion ensued on the following: - the damages caused by invasive species - high priority invasive species of japanese knotweed and fire ants - the need for a coordinated effort - fire ants spreading due to transfer of soil to another area - effects of knotweed invading wells and stopping them from working 5. Committee Bus¡ness
5.1. 17-574 Abandoned and Derelict Vessels
L. Hutcheson provided an overview of the report.
Discussion ensued on the following: aL^ ¡- ¡-.,^-¡¡-^+¡^^ ¡^- l^-^tì^¡.,^^^^t- - ulç alsqÐ^,^^^:-..^1.,^l ilrYvrYEu ill r¡rYEÐ]rgaul19 lvr awqiluvilgu^h^-¡^-^l vr^- uçrçilut vçÞÐçlÞ - utilizing non-profit groups - completing the application process, seeing what will be needed, and then going out to the community for bids - receiving proposals from private operators that may want to look at part or the whole issue
Altemate Director Day informed of a letter the District of Colwood received from
that she is bringing fon¡vard in the Federal Government on abandoned vessels. She is seeking to create a comprehensive coast-wide strategy to designate the coast guard as the agency responsible and get taxpayers off the hook by fixing vessel registration and creating a fee to help cover the cost of disposal, preventing vessels from becoming hazards with a turn-in program and safe recycling facilities.
Discussion continued on funding, contract changes, and staffing if these changes are made.
L. Hutcheson provided information on the next steps in the process
C ap ital Regio nel D¡ s'/¡cl Page 2 Printed on 8/14/2017
Page 118 of 147 Environmental Seruices Committee Meeting Minutes July 26,20'17
MOVED by Director Helps, SECONDED by Director Tait, That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the Capital Regional District Board: That in support of addressing the abandoned boat issue in the CRD: 1. Staff be directed to submit a regional application for Abandoned Boats Program (ABP) Education and Awareness funding and ABP Assessment and Removal funding; 2. The Board increase the scope ofthe Environmental Resource Management Community Clean-up Program to include the fede¡al ABP initiative, and approve: (al a 2017 budget amendment to provide $50,000, from the ERM Sustainability Reserve, to fund the completion of the required ABP funding application, including inventorying of eligible abandoned boats (b) the submission of federal ABP applications for a total of $1,050,000: $50,000 in Abandoned Boat Education and Awareness funding (with CRD contribution of $16,667) and $1,000,000 in Abandoned Boat Assessment and Removals funding (with CRD contribution of $333,333) in support of a local multi-year ABP initiative starting in 2018; and CRD contributions to be funded by the ERM Sustainability Reserve; 3. Staff approach Southern Vancouver lsland Regional Districts and First Nations regarding potent¡al South lsland synergies in addressing abandoned boats under the federal ABP initiative; and 4. The GRD Board Chair w¡ite a letter to the Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation, raising the issues as itemized in Appendix B.
MOVED by Director Mclntyre, SECONDED by Director Helps, That the main motion be amended unde¡ number 3 to add the words ", lslands Trust," after the words "Staff approach Southern Vancouver lsland Regional Districts". CARRIED
MOVED by Director Helps, SECONDED by Director Tait, That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the Gapital Regional District Board: That in support of addressing the abandoned boat issue in the CRD: 1. Staff be di¡ected to submit a regional application for Abandoned Boats Program (ABP) Education and Awareness funding and ABP Assessment and Removal funding; 2. The Board increase the scope ofthe Environmental Resource Management Gommunity Glean-up Program to include the federal ABP initiative, and approve: (al a 2O'17 budget amendment to provide $50,000, from the ERM Sustainability Reserve, to fund the completion of the required ABP funding application, including inventorying of eligible abandoned boats (b) the submission of federal ABP applications for a total of $1,050,000: $50,000 in Abandoned Boat Education and Awareness funding (with GRD contribution of $'16,667) and $1 ,000,000 in Abandoned Boat Assessment and Removals funding (with GRD contribution of $333,333) ¡n support of a Iocal multi-year ABP initiative starting in 2018; and GRD contributions to be funded by the ERM Sustainability Reserue; 3. Staff approach Southern Vancouver lsland Regional Districts, lslands Trust, and First Natíons regarding potential South lsland synergies in addressing abandoned boats under the federal ABP initiative; and 4. The CRD Board Chair write a letter to the Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation, raising the issues as itemized in Appendix B. CARRIED
C ap¡tal Reg¡ondt D i st ict Page 3 Printed on 8/11/2017
Page 119 of 147 Environmental Services Gommitfee Meeting Minutes July 26,2017
5.2. 17-573 BC Medications Retum Program - Collection of Household Veterinary Medications
L. Hutcheson provided an overyiew of the report.
ilIOVED by Dlrector Blackwell, SECONDED by Director Tait, That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the Capital Regional District Board: That the Board Ghair wriúe letten to: (a) the BG Minisûer of Env¡ronment requesting an amendment to the BC Recycling Regulation to allow collection of household veterínary medications under the BC Medications Return Program; and (b) the Chair of the Health Products Stewardship Association requesting its support In implementing changes to the BC Medications Return Program. CARRIED 6. Correspondence
6.1. 17-572 CRISP Statement -May 2017
K. Williams spoke to the CRISP Statement.
Discussion ensued on the following: - invasive species other than plants - llre ants: how to deal with them, their damage, how to eradicate them, health risks, size and depth of colonies, spreading throughout the region and the lower mainland, and making eradication of fire ants a priority - prioritizing invasive species - addressing the Scotch Broom species
MOVED by Director Williams, SECONDED by Director Helps, That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the Gapital Regional District Board: That ¡taff leport on the implications, feasibility, and recommendations to house the duties of a Regional lnvasive Species Goordinator within the Gapital Regional District CARRIED
6.2. 17-569 Letterfrom District of North Saanich to CRD Board re lnvasive Species (June 22,2017)
That iûems of correspondence 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 be received for information. CARRIED
6.3. 17-570 Letter from District of Metchosin to Brent Reems, CRD Legislative and Corporate Services, re CRISP Statement (June 26, 2017)
6.4. 17-578 Letterfrom District of Highlands to CRD Board Chair Desjardins re Regional lnvasive Species Coordinator (July 13,2017)
C,epr''l Rof/¡onet D¡stlcl P.ge I Prinled on 8/14/2017
Page 120 of 147 Environmental Services Committee Meeting Minutes July 26,20'17
7. New Business
Discussion ensued on the Plastic Bag Bylaw and when a draft bylaw will be made available. 8. Adjournment
MOVED by Director Blackwell, SECONDED by Director Helps, That the July 26, 2017 Environmental Services Committee meet¡ng be adjourned at l0:20 am. CARRIED
Chair
Recorder
Ca p ilal Region at D ¡sfÍ¡ct Page 5 Pr¡nted on thqml7
Page 121 of 147 Page 122 of 147 CI¿T] Making a difference,..together EEP 17-32
REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 26,2017
SUBJECT Abandoned and Derel¡ct Vessels
ISSUE
To provide an update on addressing abandoned boats within the Capital Regional District (CRD) and seek direction on possible federal funding for the removal and disposal of derelict boats.
BACKGROUND
The federal government has announced the Abandoned Boats Program (ABP) containing two separate components of (1) Education, Awareness and Research and (2)Assessment, Removal and Disposal of abandoned and wrecked boats that pose a hazard in Canadian waters (see Appendix A). The funding application deadlines are September 30 and October 30,2017, respectively, and an application dealing with multiple boats from a single organization is acceptable.
Prior to the announcement of the ABP, CRD staff received committee direction at the December 14, 2016 Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee meeting to initiate and coordinate inter-municipal discussions on a consistent approach to dealwith problem vessels in the region.
Staff extended invitations to CRD municipalities, electoral areas and lslands Trust and this group has met once to receive an overview of problem vessel issues, discuss each jurisdiction's challenges and approaches, identify issues, and talk about regional options to deal with problem vessels. The initial discussion of the group focused primarily on anchorage and inter-municipal alignment. At the group's next meeting on August 2, 2017, a representative from Transport Canada's Navigable Waters Protection Program will be speaking about the Abandoned Boats Program (ABP). First Nations will also be invited to participate. A repod to committee with outcomes from this group is expected at the end of 2017.
The CRD Committee of the Whole heard a presentation from Terry Beech, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, on July 19,2017. During the meeting, CRD Directors raised a number of issues related to abandoned and derelict boats. The issues raised by the Directors are itemized in Appendix B.
ALTERNATIVES
That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the CRD Board:
Alternative 1
That in support of addressing the abandoned boat issue in the CRD:
Staff be directed to submit a regional application for Abandoned Boats Program (ABP) Education and Awareness funding and ABP Assessment and Removalfunding;
ENVS-1 845500539-5663
Page 123 of 147 Environmental Services Committee - July 26,2017 Abandoned and Derelict Vessels 2
2. The Board increase the scope of the Environmental Resource Management Community Clean-up Program to include the federal ABP initiative, and approve: (a) a2017 budget amendment to provide $50,000, from the ERM Sustainability Reserve, to fund the completion of the required ABP funding application, including inventorying of eligible abandoned boats (b) the submission of federal ABP applications for a total of $1,050,000: $50,000 in Abandoned Boat Education and Awareness funding (with CRD contribution of $16,667) and $1,000,000 in Abandoned Boat Assessment and Removals funding (with CRD contribution of $333,333) in support of a local multi-year ABP initiative starting in 2018; and CRD contributions to be funded by the ERM Sustainability Reserve; 3. Staff approach Southern Vancouver lsland Regional Districts and First Nations regarding potential South lsland synergies in addressing abandoned boats under the federal ABP initiative; and 4. The CRD Board Chair write a letter to the Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation, raising the issues as itemized in Appendix B.
Alternative 2
That the CRD support parties participating in the federal Abandoned Boats Program by funding disposal tipping fees at the Hartland landfill for the disposal of local boats that have been satisfactorily assessed under the Transport Canada ABP program.
ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPLICATIONS
A2014 Vessels of Concern report conducted for Transport Canada indicated there were as many as245 vessels of concern within BC waterways, with approximately 55 (22%) in CRD watenruays. The key regions where these vessels are located in the CRD are the Gulf lslands associated with the lslands Trust (Burgoyne Bay, Fulford Harbour, Pender Harbour), Brentwood Bay, Selkirk Wateruray and Sooke Harbour. An updated assessment of quantity and types of vessels within the CRD will be required to accurately calculate removal costs for 201812019.
Abandoned vessels have significant environmental implications, including but not limited to . discharge of sewage effluent and garbage . discharge of fuels, lubricants and bilge water . erosion and degradation of shoreline and seabed ecosystems from physical damage
Prior to disposal at Hartland landfill, the ABP-approved assessment, including environmental risks, will need to be reviewed by CRD staff under the Hartland landfill controlled waste technical review framework to ensure that environmental concerns are appropriately dealt with prior to disposal at the landfill.
INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
The Canadian Coast Guard has sole jurisdiction over polluting vessels. Transport Canada may authorize a willing third party to take possession of and remove abandoned or derelict vessels and wrecks; the costs for removal are often borne by the willing third party. The recently-announced federal Abandoned Boats Program provides funding for public, private, or non-profit groups to actively remove and dispose of abandoned or wrecked small vessels.
CRD staff reached out to both the Regional District of Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley Regional District. At the time of writing this report, staff at these Regional Districts were not submitting an
ENVS-1 845500539-5663
Page 124 of 147 Environmental Services Committee - July 26,2017 Abandoned and Derelict Vessels 3
ABP application based on resource allocation to other regional priorities lf the CRD is successful in an ABP application, staff would coordinate ABP strategies with other south island Regional Districts and First Nations that also receive funding; and, by working together, all parties could realize significant efficiencies in resources and program implementation.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There is a separate program under the ABP for education and awareness projects to a maximum of $50,000 per project, with 75% of costs eligible for funding, Staff will submit an application and, if successful, deliver a regional education program that is focused on vessel stewardship and environmental effects of abandoned boats.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Removing vessels is a multi-step process, starting with posting notices on a vessel and making reasonable steps to locate an owner. lf an owner cannot be located, notification is made to the Transport Canada Navigation Protection Program, which will designate a Receiver of Wreck (often a Transport Canada employee) who can authorize any person to undertake the disposition or destruction of a vessel.
Before undertaking or directing boat removal actions, the CRD will need to obtain legal advice and develop a protocol and standard operating procedure for assessment and disposal.
FINANCIAL IM PLICATIONS
The CRD's Environmental Resource Management (ERM)division is a regionalservice with a solid waste and recycling mandate. The expansion of the ERM Community Clean-up program to include ABP-eligible abandoned boats can be funded through the ERM Sustainability Reserve. This $400,000 investment can be leveraged into a $1,400,000 abandoned boat program for the CRD. ln order to support an ABP application, the following funds would be transferred from the ERM Sustainability Reserve:
$50,000 - 2017 budget amendment, for preparing the program application and issuing a contract to inventory current abandoned and derelict vessels (non-eligible under the ABP) 2. $350,000 - as the CRD contribution to a $1,400,000 budget ($1,050,000 from the ABP) to pay for in-house or contracted resources to deliver educational initiatives and vessel removal and disposal services starting in 2018
A waiver of tipping fees (Alternatives 1 and 2) would forgo revenue, depending upon the number of vessels delivered to Hartland Landfill. Under Alternative 2, this waiver could be included in any third-party application for funding assistance under the federal program. Weights of empty boat hulls are variable, depending on construction material, boat design and how water-logged they are. As an example, a rough estimate based on receiving 55 vessels at an estimated 1.5 lo 2.5 tonnes per empty 20-30 foot sailboat hull would see the CRD forego tipping fees of $9,000-$15,000.
ENVS-1 845500539-5663
Page 125 of 147 Environmental Services Committee - July 26,2017 Abandoned and Derelict Vessels 4
CONCLUSIONS
Abandoned vessels present an environmental risk to the region's shorelines and nearshore waters. Additionally, these vessels degrade the aesthetic enjoyment of these areas and present a safety risk for beach users.
This initiative will expand the Community Clean-up program and by waiving tipping fees at Hartland Landfill for ABP eligible abandoned and removed vessels
RECOMMENDATION
That the Environmental Services Committee recommend to the Capital Regional District Board:
That in support of addressing the abandoned boat issue in the CRD:
1. Staff be directed to submit a regional application for Abandoned Boats Program (ABP) Education and Awareness funding and ABP Assessment and Removalfunding; 2. The Board increase the scope of the Environmental Resource Management Community Clean-up Program to include the federal ABP initiative, and approve: (a) a2017 budget amendment to provide $50,000, from the ERM Sustainability Reserve, to fund the completion of the required ABP funding application, including inventorying of eligible abandoned boats (b) the submission of federal ABP applications for a total of $1,050,000: $50,000 in Abandoned Boat Education and Awareness funding (with CRD contribution of $16,667) and $1,000,000 in Abandoned Boat Assessment and Removals funding (with CRD contribution of $333,333) in support of a local multi-year ABP initiative starting in 2018; and CRD contributions to be funded by the ERM Sustainability Reserve; 3. Staff approach Southern Vancouver lsland Regional Districts and First Nations regarding potential South lsland synergies in addressing abandoned boats under the federal ABP initiative; and 4. The CRD Board Chair write a letter to the Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation, raising the issues as itemized in Appendix B.
Submitted by: Russ Smith, Senior Manager, Environmental Resource Management Concurrence: Larisa Hutcheson, P.Eng., General Manager, Parks & Environmental Services Concurrence: Robert Lapham, MCIP, RPP, Chief Administrative Officer
DG:cam
Attachments Appendix A -Transport Canada's Abandoned Boats Program Appendix B - List of lssues to Raise with Canada regarding Abandoned and Derelict Boats
ENVS-1 845500539-5663
Page 126 of 147 The Corporation of the District of
Central Saanich
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
For the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017
To: Patrick Robins File: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Chris Hall Priority: Strategic Interim Manager of Current Operational Planning
Date: August 24, 2017
Re: Residential Infill and Densification Next Steps
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee of the Whole recommend Council: 1. Reaffirm its strategic priority to update housing densification and infill policy based on the initial 2012 “Residential Densification Study”, and 2. Authorize staff to prepare a request for proposal for a consultant selection process.
BACKGROUND: As a result of a Council motion October 19, 2015, staff engaged Gerard LeBlanc of Cedar Coast Planning Consultants to make recommendations on options for community engagement on residential infill and densification. His report, included an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for a public engagement process of $35,000 to $55,000 and (see Attachment "A").
The project is included in Council’s Strategic priorities for 2016 with a funding envelope of $30,000. An additional amount of $55,000 is identified for subsequent work in 2017-18. The funding justification for both segments is based on an analysis of multifamily densification in the core communities of Brentwood Bay and Saanichton as well as a focus on infill in single family neighbourhoods. Prior to proceeding staff wish to: a) confirm the focus and intent of the study and b) approval to proceed with a request for proposals for the 2016/17 work.
1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135
Page 127 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer August 24, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Residential Infill and Densification Next Steps
DISCUSSION: Existing policies in the Central Saanich Official Community Plan support a process of infill and densification within the Urban Settlement Areas. Changes to municipal policies or bylaws, however, have not been considered since the completion of the 2012 Residential Densification study. The existing OCP Development Permit guidelines have not been updated since adoption in 2000. Meanwhile, new development have at times generated a strong reaction among nearby residents.
As a result it was felt that policies and regulations may be warranted to clarify expectations among residents and applicants alike. Before making policy or bylaw changes, a process of community engagement was proposed to do the following: • raise awareness and understanding among residents of what current regulations (e.g., zoning)allow; • highlight the potential impacts (traffic, parking, shading, privacy, neighbourhood character) and benefits (more affordable, inclusive, diverse housing for the community) of infill and densification; and, • gather informed feedback from residents to help guide decisions on any changes to policy and/or regulations. • utilize online tools to obtain public opinion on successful developments along with discussion on where current guidelines were not adequate • identify lessons learned and recommendations for changes to policy and regulations (i.e. updated DP guidelines).
Funds for the 2017 project would be directed to the whole community. The 2018 project will then focus on smaller geographical areas of Saanichton and Brentwood. Both would be a valuable consultation process in advance of the 2020 OCP review and give Council a good sense of how best to proceed with that important exercise.
Focus The focus of the work ($30,000) would initially be to review the existing infill and densification policy, identify residents’ specific concerns, and comments based on experiences and perspectives since the 2012 report, and produce recommendations for refinement of DP Guidelines and creation of parallel guidelines for rezoning applications. This would help fulfill OCP Section 4.2 Policy 5.
• Residents in urban neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the nature and impact of densification of residential areas. Develop a set of guidelines for rezoning, comparable to the current ‘Design Guidelines for Infill Housing’ to give direction to potential developers and provide a sense of security for neighbourhoods
Subsequently a second stage would undertake a review of the core centres of Saanichton and Brentwood Bay Village to determine areas where rezoning and redevelopment would be beneficial to achieve OCP Section 4.2 Policy 4.
Sensitive residential infill and intensification will be considered in areas designated for residential uses within the Urban Settlement Area. Higher density forms of residential development may also be considered within convenient walking distance of existing or planned transit services in the established commercial and service areas of Saanichton and Brentwood
Page 128 of 147 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer August 24, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Residential Infill and Densification Next Steps
Bay Village. The building height and density of development should graduate from higher to lower as it is located further away from the core commercial roads.
CONCLUSION: Staff look to the Committee of the Whole to provide direction for next steps on this long range planning work.
ATTACHMENTS: • report by Cedar Coast Planning Endorsed by: Consultants Ruth Malli Interim Manager, Planning and
Building
Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer
Page 129 of 147 Cedor Coost Plonning Consultants December 7,2075
DrsTRrcT oF CENTRAL SAANTCH (DCS) REPORT TO COUNCIT INFITL AND DENSIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: o Receive this Staff Report to guide its discussion at the December 9,2075 Strategic Session to assign priority to current and future projects in the District of Central Saanich.
BACKGROUND
On Monday, October L9,2OLS Council passed the following motion:
"that stoff reporl bock to Council with an outline of o potentiol community engdgement process to review ond updote densification and infill policies in the District of Centrol Saonich in 2076. The overview should consider: c How would this impoct our strotegic priorities (whot needs to change?) o Estimated costs of such o plonning exercise o List of relevont plonning documents o Consideration of neighbourhood areo plans o Communicotion: novel ideos to motivote the community t Public meetings: consideration of modelling exercises to help residents better understond the outcomes of infill ond densificotion in the context of zoning ond lot size, with the goal of improving infill guidelines and densification policies."
This report has been prepared to enable Council to consider it during its upcoming priority-setting strategy session in December. Following the Background discussion, this report is organized to address each of the six considerations identified in its October t9,2Ot5 resolution.
BACKGROUND
Council has been considering density of development since the adoption of the first Central Saanich Official Community Plan (OCP) and Land Use Bylaw (LUB). Density is dealt with in the OCP and the LUB through land use designations, minimum lot sizes, lot coverage and floor space ratio considerations, among others. An overarching consideration is the Regional Context Statement and Urban Settlement Area adopted by the District to provide for development that will be in line with the CRD Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). The RGS does not impose growth (or its limits) on the municipality; rather the District has the authority to define the location, type and amount of infill and densification within its self-defined bounda ries.
The OCP establishes settlement patterns for all of Central Saanich. Residential and commercial activities are concentrated in Saanichton, Brentwood Bay, Tanner Ridge, Turgoose and the Keating lndustrial area. Commercial and mixed-use development is located in Brentwood Bay and Saanichton while industrial development is concentrated in the Keating lndustrial area. Single family residential development is located outside the village core areas with density diminishing as development m¡grates outward, taking on a suburban form relative to lot sizes and layout. lt is noted that lands outside the Urban Settlement
l lPage
Page 130 of 147 Cedar Coast Plonning Consultdnts December 7, 2075
Area boundary are rural and agricultural in nature reflecting the community's wishes to protect its rural character, as noted in the OCP.
DtscusstoN
The orderly, suburban form of development in the District appeals to many due to its predictable pattern and limited future growth. This pattern however limits the potential for residential diversity, affordability and, possibly, inclusivity relative to single-parent fam¡lies, restricted mobility, etc. Council, in response to public concerns about infill and densification, is seeking to manage how infill in suburban residential areas and densification in community cores might affect the community.
lnfilland densification differ in terms of scale, although both result in increases in density. Residential infill is typically the addition of a residential use(s) on a large lot subdivided to accommodate the additional unit(s). This type of development occurs in an existing developed area and is intended to resultinsimilarusesasexistinthearea. lnfillcanalsobethesubdivisionofalargerparcelofvacant land into lots to accommodate more houses (and sometimes at a higher density than) in an existing residential area. Fundamental infill principles include: the form and type of development are similar to existing, adjacent development; and, consideration is given to transit, roads and levels of servicing, among others. lnfill can be thought of as development up to the current limits in place under the existing zoning regulations.
Densification is more intense than infill. This involves a change in the zoning regulations as they apply to a property to increase the amount of development allowed. Existing OCP policies support future residential development within core areas of the District within the designated Urban Settlement Area. ln the village centres of Brentwood Bay and Saanichton, densification through redevelopment may include apartments, residential development above commercial uses, mixed use commercial/office/residential buildings and possibly work/live uses. Areas densifying include municipally-serviced areas with infrastructure to accommodate the anticipated densities. Additional services such as roads, sidewalks, cycling lanes and transit services are to be in place to accommodate the uses and where upgrades are required they are to be provided by the developer. Densification results in a higher concentration of development and provides a more diverse, concentrated and intense levelofservicesthanresidentialinfill. Anargumentinfavourofdensificationisthatamorecompact urban form can support local businesses and improved transit services, while making more efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The 2008 Housing Copocity Anolysis (Appendix 'B' of the OCP) acknowledged that a minor amount of residential growth is expected to occur in existing single-family neighbourhoods. The Residential Densification Study (RDS) completed in 2012 looked at forms of infill and densification within single- family neighbourhoods, and aimed at gauging residents' preferences.
A discussion of Council's October 19,zOtS resolution follows
1. lmpact on DSC Stroteqic Priorities
The 2075 Strotegic Priorities Chort (Appendix 1) establishNOW and NEXT corporate priorities. These are to be reviewed by Council and senior staff in early-December 2015. The priorities establish the chronology for Council and staff to action the items. NOW items are dealt with on an on-going basis
2lPage
Page 131 of 147 Cedor Coost Planning Consultants December 7, 2075
until completed and are logically'replaced'with a NEXT item. Residential lnfill: Process and Bylaws is shown as a NEXT item.
ln its upcoming strategic planning session, Councilcan revisit the relative priority of the items in its plan Accelerating the "Residential lnfill: Process and Bylaws" project should be considered among the other strategic and operational strategies already identified that will involve resources from Planning and Building Services:
"Now" '/ RSS lnput "Next" tr Community Amenities Policy tr RSS Bylaw referral (now Q4 2016) tr Community Food Handling Facilities - Business Case
tr OCP: amend RCS (post RGS) tr Saanichton Village Plan tr Farm Land Access strategy "Operational" ,/ RSS tnput tr update Development Application Procedures Bylaw tr update Building Bylaw tr Delegation report tr Farm Worker Housing Bylaw tr OCP: amend RCS (Post RGS adoption:2OL7l Added (201s) tr Agricultural Advisory Committee bylaw tr RDS next steps
2.
Following the completion of terms of reference for this project, the review will be coordinated by the Director of Planning and completed by a qualified community planning consultant skilled in community engagement. The project would be an intensive exercise to include a detailed work plan establishing the process, goals and measurables for the project and a community engagement process including time lines, events, meetings, reporting structures, etc.,.
The estimated cost of completing this exercise is in the 535,000 - 55,000 range and includes professional fees, preparation of exhibits including a model and mapping, an online component, expenses and disbursements such as hall rental, refreshments, mileage, photocopying, printing, etc. This estimate includes familiarization with the issue and background reports, preparation of the communication plan, coordinating community engagement sessions, meetings with the Director and senior staff and presentation of a report to Council.
3lPage
Page 132 of 147 Cedar Coast Pldnning Consultants December 7,2075
Fees:
Task Time Cost
L. Preparation of Work & Communication Plans 7.0 hours s 1,050.00
2. Detailed familiarization with documentation and consultation to date 21.0 hours 3,150.00
3. Establish community engagement process such as a SpeakOut, workshop, charrette, etc., with the Director of Planning, train staff in methodology and approach 21.0 hours 3,150.00
4. Prepare a modelto illustrate infill and densification a nd related differences 35.0 hours 5,250.00
5. Organize and schedule community engagement events and hold five (5) to ten (10) sessions 65.0 - 130 hours 9,750.00 - 19,500
6. Facilitated online engagement tools 20.0 - 65.0 hours 3,000.00 - 9,750.00
7. Review, assess and prepare a report on community input and engagement and report to the Director and Council 21.0 hours 3,150.00
8. Prepare a Final Report w¡th recommendations l-4.0 hours 2,100.00
Total Estimated Fees: S 30,600.00 to 47,100.00
Expenses:
Travel, prepare exhibits, printing, mapping, background information for the public, hall/venue rental and other considerations 5,000.00
Total Estimate of Fees and Expenses: S 35.600.00 to 52.1oo.oo
BALLPARK $35,ooo.oo to 55,ooo.oo
4lPage
Page 133 of 147 Cedør Coost Planning Consultønts December 7,2075
3. List of Relevant Plonnino Documents
The District has the following plans, studies and reports that have direct bearing and impact on infill and densification initiatives taken by Council. They can be used to guide direction on future infill and densification:
1. OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No. 1600 2. Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 3. Housing Capacity Analysis (Appendix 'B' to OCP, 2007) 4. Residential Densification Study (2OL2l 5. Housing Needs Assessment (2000) 6. CRD Regional Housing Affordability Strategy (2OO7l 7. CRD Housing Data Book and Gap Analysis (2015)
The Council resolution requires "Considerotion of neighbourhood oreo plons" however neighbourhood plans for Saanichton and Brentwood Bay are incorporated into the OCP. They no longer ex¡st as stand- alone documents but the applicable policies for these areas are to be considered. Neighbourhood- specific engagement activities and recommendations would likely form a key part of the project.
4. Communicotlon: novel ideos to motivate the communitv
A need exists to better define and explain the concepts of infill' and 'densification'. Providing knowledge on infill and densification to the community as well as ideas to continue and expand their discussion are essential to the current proposed Council process. Messages related to the public on infill and densification approaches can be communicated via the District website, through social media and through traditional media such as newspapers, flyers and posting on mobile displays and community bulletin boards. These approaches would be separate from the formal public engagement process discussed below.
5. Public meetinas: consideration of modellina exercises
Community engagement on these issues is important for Council prior to any decision being made on policies, guidelines and regulations on infill and densification. An opportunity to inform and engage the public on the outcomes of infill and densification will help guide future action particularly when establishing improved guidelines, policies and regulations in the OCP and LUB.
An initial project launch / town hall event could be used to present the project goals and steps, and educate residents on the background to the project.
An effective exercise to inform and engage the public is through a method called SpeokOuts. Developed by Dr. Wendy Sarkassian, a Canadian working in Australia, and Andrea Cook, this process is used extensively on a wide range of complex issues from development to daycare with significant success. SpeokOuts occur in a community hall or similar venue, and are devoted to engaging residents of a community and receiving feedback on issues such as infill and densification and the impacts associated with them.
SpeokOuts would be organized to permit residents to review information and options of infill and densification and discuss their implications and potential outcomes with Council and staff. Storyboards 5lPage
Page 134 of 147 Cedar Coast Plønning Consultants December 7,2075
will be presented on each issue, likely on either side of the same room, with a centrally-located table to accommodate a hands-on model illustrating infill and densification. Unlike the open houses held during the 20L1 I 2OL2 Residential Densification Study, each SpeakOut event would focus on a specific neighbourhood or area of the municipality. The project cost estimate above could be tailored to include more or fewer events (targeting more specific or more broadly defined neighbourhoods). The goal of these events is to inform and engage residents on the future possibilities within the neighbourhood they relate to most strongly.
Thematic displays on each subject of height, setback requirements, privacy, parking, impacts on servicing, street character, etc., would be established to focus participants' ideas and obtain feedback. Tables and chairs would be provided in the centre of the room to enable participants to make notes, respond to questionnaires or speak with their neighbours and Councillors and staff, about their concerns. Council and staff would interact with residents with a view to obtain comments to guide any policies and guidelines developed on each of the issues.
Holding kitchen table meetings is another approach and one which allows direct contact with residents. This would mean finding willing hosts in each neighbourhood within the municipality. This approach would be more difficult to coordinate than a SpeakOut, would take more resources and may reach fewer participants, but would have the advantage of personal contact.
A third approach would be to use an Open House format which would be established in the same manner as previous infill and densification sessions. lt is likely that either of the previous suggested approaches would be advantageous to having another Open House. A coordinated series of SpeokOut events would likely be the most preferred and effective of all three community engagement options.
Online Enqaqement
Web-based components to complement hands-on engagement events and tools can be used successfully to raise awareness, gather feedback and reach residents who may not be willing or able to attend specific events. Developing content and refreshing / moderating the on-line part of the project takes time and has been included in the project cost estimate. Specific tools would be identified at the RFP stage of engaging the consultant.
CONCLUSION
This report responds to Council's October t9,2075 resolution regarding infill and densification. Consideration has been given to impacts on current strategic priorities, costs, relevant planning documents and plans, approaches to communication and options for community engagement. An estimated budget and preferred approach to community engagement are also provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council: o Receive this Staff Report to guide its discussion at the December 9,2015 Strategic Session to assign priority to current and future projects in the District of Central Saanich.
6lPage
Page 135 of 147 Fun with numbers... Neighbourhood change The siting, size and height of buildings on residential lots is determined by the Land Use Bylaw (Bylaw No. 1309). In established neighbourhoods, a new home may be a lot di erent than the original house.
Siting Where a house can be located on a lot is limited by the setbacks which define a building envelope in which a house can be located. There are also setbacks for Building envelope accessory buildings like garden sheds. Setbacks are the same for all lots in a zone, regardless of lot size. Because setbacks are constant, larger lots have a larger building envelope. When a new house replaces an older home in a neighbourhood, it may change viewscape of neighbours.
Building footprint Lot coverage is the proportion of a lot that is covered by buildings and structures (calculation excludes fences and in-ground swimming Here’s an example from pools). It’s what we typically think of the R-1 zone (Large Lot Residential) as the building footprint. The Lot area: 69 ft X 122 ft = 8,418 sq ft maximum allowable lot coverage is expressed as a percentage of lot Maximum lot coverage: area. Typically, lot coverage ls less 8,418 sq ft X 30% = 2,525 sq ft than the building envelope. Because lot coverage is a percentage of lot area, larger lots have greater potential building footprint.
Page 136 of 147 Building size: Floor area ratio (FAR) The maximum size of buildings on a lot is limited by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR is the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area, expressed as a decimal fraction.
In Central Saanich FAR excludes (a) any portion of an underground storey used for parking where that storey is located entirely below grade, (b) unenclosed swimming pools, open balconies, porches, sundecks and stairways, (c) any crawl space, and (d) any elevator, electrical, or mechanical penthouse.
Here’s our example from the R-1 zone (Large Lot Residential: FAR=0.45) Lot area: 8,418 sq ft Maximum allowable floor area = 8,418 sq ft X .45 = 3,788 sq ft
Because FAR is a percentage of lot size, larger lots in any zone can have larger houses. When new houses replace older homes in a neighbourhood they may be significantly larger than the original house. Here are some examples: Lot size (sq ft) Max floor area (sq ft) 10,000 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 16,000 sq ft 7,200 sq ft
Building height Building height is the vertical distance from the natural grade at the perimeter of a building or structure to (a) the highest mean level between the eaves and ridge of a sloping roof, (b) the highest point of the roof surface of a flat roof and (c) the highest point of all other structures (there are some exclusions for chimneys, vents and other projections).
Peak
Midpoint
Eave Height
Average grade
These structures are similar height according to the Land Use Bylaw. Roofs with dormers and gambrel roofs are more complex.
Variances Council has the authority to grant variances to like setbacks and building height and setback, for example, through a public process. However, any changes to density (FAR) require a re-zoning.
Page 137 of 147 Use basic scale models to demonstrate neighbourhood impacts.
4’ x 6’ (1.2m X 1.8m) base for neighbourhood plan
Promote public events with a mobile sign at high tra c sites in the municipality.
Page 138 of 147 ,y Shea rrom: Central Saanich via Central Saanich
Submitted on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - 13:02 Submitted by anonymous user: 173.239.195.63 [o)�©�OW� Submitted values are: '[JI lfll JUL 1 1 2017 l_h}j Subject: Improved Traffic Flow and Safety Tho Corporation of the District First & Last Name: William Burns of Central Saanich Phone Number: Address: 6506 Rodolph Road Email: Message: I live in the Tanner Ridge area. Over the past few years, like you, I have experienced increased vehicle traffic in our community. I wish to offer a couple of simple suggestions to improve traffic flaw and safety. 1. Close the access road off Pat Bay Highway to East Saanich Road. This is such an obvious safety inprovement with The traffic lights at Island View providing a safe exit. 2. Remove the stop signs on Saanich Cross Road at East Saanich Road. The stop signs on East Saanich road to remain. Doing this will enable the traffic, particularly large trucks to access Pat Bay Highway via Island View without the cumbersome stops for truck drivers going to and from Keating. 3. Erect a stop sign on the south side of East Saanich Road at Island View. 4. Remove the stop sign on Island View at East Saanich Road for vehicles turning right off Island View.
Making the forgoing changes will improve traffic flow, particularly for large trucks and make for safer roadways. If Council is reluctant to remove the access off Pat Bay Highway to East Saanich Road, traffic will still be more encouraged to use Island View as the use of East Saanich Road in the area will not be without another stop.
Should you wish to talk to me, please call.
Thank you, William Burns
The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.centralsaanich.ca/node/295/submission/428
1
Page 139 of 147 The Corporation of the District of
Central Saanich
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
For the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 11, 2017
To: John Manson File: 5320-20-5633 Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works
From: Yvan Sylvestre Priority: Strategic Senior Engineering Technician Operational
Date: July 19, 2017
Re: Expansion of Sewer Collection Area No 1 - Bylaw 1922
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Central Saanich Sewage Collection Area No 1, Extension Bylaw No. 1922, 2017 be introduced and read a first time by title only.
2. That the Central Saanich Sewage Collection Area No 1, Extension Bylaw No. 1922, 2017 be read a second; and
3. That the Central Saanich Sewage Collection Area No 1, Extension Bylaw No. 1922, 2017, be read a third time.
DISCUSSION: The District has received a request from the owners of 6465 Rodolph Road for a connection to the sanitary collection system. Sanitary servicing requires inclusion of the lands into Sewer Collection Area No.1.
1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135
Page 140 of 147 To: John Manson, Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works July 19, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Expansion of Sewer Collection Area No 1 - Bylaw 1922
The property is described in detail below and shown on the Site Context Plan attached as Appendix “A”.
Lot 2, Section 16, R4E, SSD, VIP23082 (6465 Rodolph Road)
The property is currently zoned Large Lot Single Family Residential (R1) and is within the Urban Settlement Boundary as defined in the Official Community Plan (OCP).
The property is currently serviced by on-site septic treatment but is showing sign of failure and causing concern to the property owner. The municipal sewer system is available on Rodolph Road but requires an extension of 18m to service the property.
The criteria used to consider the inclusion of lands into the Sewer Collection Area are the policies of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and Council Resolution 532.09. A flowchart outlining the process used by Staff is attached for reference (Appendix ‘B’). The OCP Bylaw No.1600 deals with municipal utilities in Section 10.
Policy 1 of subsection 10.2.1 states:
“Detailed expansion of utility services shall be in conformity with overall land use and development policies of this plan; as a general principle, water and sanitary services will be available in areas designated as Urban Settlement shown on Schedule A, Land Use Plan.”
Policy 1 of subsection 10.2.2 states:
“The use of conventional and innovative septic tank and field disposal systems is supported for any residential dwelling situated, or to be situated on Agricultural or Rural lands provided environmental impacts are fully considered, including impacts on the marine environment.”
Council Resolution 532.09 states:
“Extension of Sewer Lines would follow the existing policies already in place. Consideration of extending the Sewer Service Area outside of the Urban Containment Boundary should only be seen as a means to resolve a current health problem as confirmed by a professional if no reasonable alternative is feasible.”
CONCLUSION: Based on Council policies, it is supported that this property be included into the Sewer Collection Area which requires an amendment to the Central Saanich Sewage Collection Area No. 1.
The “Central Saanich Sewage Collection Area No.1, Extension Bylaw No. 1922, 2017” is attached for appropriate readings.
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 141 of 147 To: John Manson, Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works July 19, 2017 For: September 11, 2017 Committee of the Whole Re: Expansion of Sewer Collection Area No 1 - Bylaw 1922
Appendix "A" - Site Context Plan Endorsed by: Bylaw 1922, 2017 John Manson Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works
Administrator’s Recommendation: I concur with the recommendation contained in this report. Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer
Page 142 of 147 Sewer lnclusion Appendix"A"
6465 Rodolph Rd
LEGEND
SUBJECT SITE ecale 1'25OO
6535 6536 2456 c0 2+55 6540 653J 651 6 2452 653 1 6525 6538 6522 + 6521 + 6517 6536 rt- N 2441
6506 (\ co (o c.l @ + (o N 6509 C\ o o (\ N ¡.) + + lr) 6509 O¡ + + + + + + + + + 6505 r.) N N N N N (\ N N N N 6499 a 6498 6495 2384 { VI 649 1 6492 a_ O) o o ô It r.) O) |r) + + C.J (\ t) r.) + lf) 6458 N N l if + + + $ + 6447 6486 o) N N N N N c.l N M) Z. ô 648 1 t- @ (\ É r.) Ð N N --) 6468 T 6+77 6480 6470 647-7 O 6479 lf) æ z. ¡/) N 6+67 647+ 6475 6464 6+62 (n{ 6473 6465 6458 6468 Ol 6453 6465 ó + "$ (o 6+64 64+5 LI 6+45 EÐ O ( 6+41 6+37 6454
2 É 6437 6+29 6446 o*46 6438 z. 6438 o ôrJ6 øúL9 6 6421 â o æ N o ó N z ¡/) + st L¡- 6437 + t t $ + + q 6428 z z4o2 N N N N N N 1 641 5 6429 6+28 WILCOX TCE 6409 6420 ( Itr It- ú) r.) r.) (o + + + $ + rf)+ + ¡ 6403 6+12 N ô.1 c.l N c.l N N c 6414 6+1 1
2310 6+04 6403 6404 C 6403 YI z 6+O2 2322 f 639 6 6J95 6+04 6393 2334 6J 6388 6387 6383 2346 6384 6 6379 2335 6380
Btoh;¡22-6L5 Bodoþh
Page 143 of 147 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH
BYLAW NO. 1922
A Bylaw to Amend Sewer Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 322, 1971 to Extend Sewage Collection Area No. 1 to include Lot2, Section 16, R4E, SSD, Vlp230S2 (6465 Rodolph Road)
WHEREAS District of Central Saanich has been petitioned by the property owners of 646b Rodolph Road outside the Sewage Collection Area No. 1, for a cônneciion to t'he Sanitary Sewer System;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
This 1' Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Central Saanich Sewage Coilection Area No. 1, Extension Bylaw (Lot 2, secfion 16, R4E, ssD vtp2g0g2) No. íg22, 2017,.
2. That Sewer Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 322, 1gr1 be amended as follows:
a) By adding the following paragraph to section 1 of the Byraw: .P H 181:
Allthat part of Lot 2 section 16, R4E, ssD, vtp23og2 (646s Rodotph Rd),' By b) amending Schedule "A" to Bylaw No. 322, 1971 to include within the shaded area identifying Sewage Collection Area No. 1 those lands shown shaded on the Site plan attached as Schedule "4" to this Bylaw.
READ A FIRST TIME this day of ,2017
READ A SECOND TIME this day of ,2017
READ A THIRD T|ME this day of ,2017
ADOPTED this day of ,2017
Ryan Windsor Mayor
Liz Cornwell Corporate Officer
Page 144 of 147 Bylaw No. 1922 Schedule "4" Sewer Extension 6465 Rodolph Rd
LECf;ND
1'25OO SUBJECT SITE ecale
6535 6536 2456 co 2+55 6540 6533 2452 651 6 653 1 6525 6538 6522 + 6521 + 6517 6536 ù"o N 24+1
6506 N @ (o N ó + (o C\ 6509 C\l N N ¡.) + + ú) 6509 +o +o + + + + + + + 6505 t) c! N (\ c.l N N (\ N C\ N 6499 t\-a 6498 6495 2384 {> 649 1 6+92 o_ O oO) ô t- r.) o, lr) + N N t) ¡.) + l]. 6458 N + l $ + + O) N + + s 6+87 6486 Þ. t/) N N N N N N ô 648 1 It- @ z. t n ¡.) N c.l N --l 6468 ï 6+77 6480 6470 6477 6479 l¡. O æ z- ¡r) 6+75 N 6+6+ 6+62 6467 6+74 6465 (n 6473 6458 J 645J uout +Ol _\ + f z. 6464 qÐ 6445 L! 6+45 (J f 64+1 6+37 6+5+ f 6437 6429 6446 6438 z 6+46 6438 o ôlJ8 ol29 € 6+21 ô o @ N o cO N z. r.) * s lJ. z. 6437 + + + $ + + 6+28 z4oz N N N N N c.l 641 5 6429 6428 WILCOX TCE 6409 6+20 ( O) ft- It- rf) ¡.) o o ¡.) + ú) (o I + * $ $ + + + 640J 6+12 N c..l N N N N C\l c 641 4 641 1
2310 6404 6403 6404 C 6403 6402 2322 6396 6395 6404 6J94 6393 639 2334 6388 6387
2346 6384 6383 63 6380 6379 2335 ¡ ryr¡22-4L5Rodoþh
Page 145 of 147 9l't112017 caôccsa.gff (432x21|6)
hþs://llagspot.net/imagelc/ca-bccsa.gif 1t1
Page 146 of 147 On Sep 10, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Alicia Holman
The municipal website of Central Saanich shows and describes the municipal coat of arms as follows:
The Crest is a curved goat horn (cornucopia) from the mouth of which fruits and vegetables overflow.
The Coat of Arms is the shield which is divided by two curved flaunches: on each section is a figure of a salmon placed vertically head upwards and back to back over a background of azure and silver horizontal stripes to represent the ocean. The centre panel of the shield is silver with three figures placed in a vertical line from top to bottom: a Thunderbird with wings extended, an English Rose in full bloom and a Daffodil blossom. The various figures in the Coat of Arms were carefully chosen to speak to the history, resources, ambiance and aspirations of Central Saanich and its people.
The Salmon on both sides reference the fact that it is only a short distance in any direction to the ocean and its richness. The Thunderbird stands guard, speaking to us of our First Nations, principally the Tsawout and Tsartlip First Nations communities. The English Rose stands for the recent British heritage of the community and the systems of government based on Central Saanich as primarily an agriculturally-based community. This is reflected not only in the farmers’ fields but also in the many world-renowned private and public gardens.
The Cornucopia tells of the great bounty that comes to use from the hard work and dedication of the friendly people in the agricultural community. Central Saanich is blessed with rich land, bountiful oceans and a gentle climate.
The Motto is “Land of Plenty” which is lettered on a scroll and truly describes the District of Central Saanich.
Page 147 of 147