Appendix
Attachment 6 - Shoreline Guidelines Review for 2818 Shoreline Drive
December 2, 2025Pages 185–1904 sections
Technical review of shoreline protection and restoration guidelines for the development permit application at 2818 Shoreline Drive.
2818 Shoreline DriveNative plantings are 15m0.6m concrete rubble retaining wall$43,000.00 landscape security deposit
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| v. For shoreline areas heavily impacted by previous development, target the restoration of ecologically appropriate vegetation for an average 15m wide (minimum 5 m) shoreline zone over 50% of the shore length. | Native plantings are 15m with along the shoreline, except in the location of the gravel paths and walkway (6.7% of the SDPA). |
| vi. Riparian and shoreline area development should sensitively manage storm water, focusing on infiltration and release of storm water in ways and quantities that mimics natural patterns, avoids scouring and erosion and results in storm water free from pollutants. | The storm water from the house will be directed into the sea and will be managed using an infiltration trench & overflow lawn basin or alternatively a drain rock lined dry riverbed to address this guideline. |
| vii. Shoreline protection measures should be limited to those necessary to prevent damage to existing structures or established uses on adjacent upland. | Minor repairs to an existing 0.6m concrete rubble retaining wall along part of the shoreline protection is proposed using hand placed rock, to create planting pockets. |
viii. In the design of new developments or re‐development, the use of soft engineered and innovative alternatives to stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, such as bioengineering rather than traditional hard engineered measures should be used. In general, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on shoreline process, including sediment transport, geomorphology and biological functions. Hard" measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads, while "soft" structural measures rely on less rigid materials, such as biotechnical vegetation measures or beach enhancement. There is a range of measures varying from soft to hard that include:
|
The proposal is for minor repairs to an existing retaining wall as outlined above. |
| ix. Where hard measures can conclusively be shown to be the only means of effectively preventing erosion, they should be designed in consultation with a registered professional biologist, qualified environmental professionals and professional engineers, as appropriate. | n/a |
| x. The. | Native tree and shrub clusters will be planted at the north and south ends of the shoreline. Salt tolerant native plantings that can adapt to sea level rise are proposed near the shoreline. |
| xi. Any new public pathways or public access should be designed and constructed in consultation with a registered professional biologist or qualified environmental professional, as appropriate, and the Town of View Royal Parks Department. | n/a |
Page 185–190
GUIDELINES – CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DOCKS AND BOAT LAUNCH FACILITIES
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| i. Docks and wharves should ensure that public access along the shore is maintained, and should serve multiple users as much as possible rather that one dock per property. | n/a |
| ii. Design, size and location of docks and wharves should not limit opportunities for water access for neighbouring private properties. | n/a |
| iii. Private docks and wharves should be designed to provide access to the water and seasonal boating opportunities, rather than sized to facilitate year round moorage of boats. | n/a |
| iv. n/a | n/a |
| v. Docks should be constructed in a manner that permits the free flow of water beneath. Supports should be located on a hard substrate. | |
| vi. Floating docks should not rest on the bottom at any time and a minimal, moveable ramp should be utilized to connect the dock with the shore rather than a fixed wharf or pier. | n/a |
| vii. Piers and pilings and floating docks are preferred over solid-core piers. | n/a |
| viii. Docks should be constructed of stable materials that will not degrade over time. The use of unenclosed plastic foam or the use of creosote treated pilings is strongly discouraged. | n/a |
Page 185–190
GUIDELINES - SPECIFIC OCEAN SHORELINE TYPES
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 measures are generally not required on rocky shores as the bedrock provides adequate protection from erosion the following guidelines apply:
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| i. Ensure that a minimum 15-metre setback for new buildings and structures, additions to existing buildings and structures or the placement and removal of fill is maintained. | n/a |
| ii. A setback of less than 15-metres may be considered if it is supported by a report by a qualified coastal professional (for geotechnical and coastal process considerations) and a registered professional biologist (for biological/environmental considerations) and satisfies all of the guidelines associated with this development permit area. | n/a |
| iii. Due to the inherently stable nature of this type of shoreline, applications for shore protection measures will generally not be accepted unless evidence is provided by a qualified coastal professional that there is a substantial risk of damage or loss of structures. | n/a |
Beach Shores may consist of broad silty/sandy beaches or gravely/blocky rubble beaches or mixed rock with beach sediment, and may be classified as either a drift-sector or pocket beach. With this type of shoreline, the following guidelines apply:
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| i. Ensure that a minimum 15-metre setback for new buildings and structures, additions to existing buildings and structures, or the placement and removal of fill is maintained. | n/a |
| ii. Where shore protection measures are necessary, make use of “beach nourishment” designs, which add appropriately sized material to the upper beach, creating a natural beach slope and beach armour. | n/a |
| iii. Use of seawalls and rip rap embankments are generally not acceptable except when no alternative shore protection design is possible. | n/a |
Marsh Shores include both mudflat and delta areas, and are generally highly sensitive and productive natural areas. The intertidal (foreshore) zone in this area is typically dynamic, changing in response to large stream flows and storm events. Though dynamic, the shore zone in these areas is generally accreting rather than eroding. It is important to allow sufficient space to allow these natural sediment processes to occur. With this type of shoreline, the following guidelines apply:
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| i. Provide a property-specific assessment with respect to building setbacks and shore protection designs, as stream sediment processes are important and will vary from site to site. | Provided |
| ii. Dredging or filling of marsh shore should not be permitted. | None proposed |
| iii. Use of marsh shore areas should be limited to park or conservation uses that do not require structural intrusions. | No structural intrusions are proposed into the marsh shore area |
| iv. Where shore protection measures are necessary, make use of “beach nourishment” designs, which add appropriately sized material to the upper beach, creating a natural beach slope and beach armour. | n/a |
| v. Sea walls and rip rap embankments should not be used to protect these shoreline areas. | Existing retaining wall is approximately 0.6m and would be retained |
Page 185–190
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
| Guideline | Proposal |
|---|---|
| i. Development applications shall include an impact assessment report, following recognized best-management practices, prepared by a registered professional biologist with the following information: | |
| • Detailed identification of all environmentally sensitive areas within the site; | Provided |
| • Criteria used to define the boundaries of ESAs; | Provided |
| • Inventory of significant fish species, red and blue list species, sensitive ecosystems wildlife trees and related habitat classification within the site; | Provided |
| • Impact statement describing effects of the proposed development on natural conditions; | Provided |
| • Recommendations for mitigating habitat degradation, including management of sedimentation and erosion, stabilization and re-vegetation of degraded or impacted areas, identification of areas that should remain free of development or be subject to special conditions, and recommendations as to any rearrangement of proposed development activities on the site that would be beneficial to the protection of ESAs Guidelines for mitigating habitat degradation, including limits of proposed leave strips and buffer zones. | Provided |
| • Recommended development permit conditions under s. 920(7) of the Local Government Act, to be considered by the Town in issuing a development permit, including any recommendations regarding the timing and sequence of development activities and the monitoring of those activities by the professional biologist | Provided |
| ii. In relation to watercourse areas, the impact assessment report shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with the assessment methods for riparian area assessments prescribed under the Riparian Areas Regulation and shall provide the information listed in the previous guideline. | Provided |
| iii. Where development is within this Development Permit Area, design details of proposed mitigating measures are to be provided in an environmental management plan prepared by qualified project consultants with the assistance of a registered professional biologist. Minimizing sedimentation and erosion, stabilizing and re-vegetating impacted areas, and monitoring requirements must also be addressed in the management plan. | Provided |
| iv. Where development is within this Development Permit Area, a storm water management plan must be prepared by a qualified engineer in consultation with a registered professional biologist. | Provided |
| v. Where steep or unstable slopes exist or there is risk of flooding, a report from a geotechnical engineer must be provided. | Provided |
| vi. Design details for all shoreline works must be submitted by qualified engineer. | Provided (storm water management) |
Page 185–190
Extracted from: 2025 12 02 Council Agenda - Agenda - Pdf