[0:00] Everyone, it's 10:00. We have a quorum. I'll call Service Committee meeting of

[0:06] August the 12th, 2026 to order. The first uh thing is I will recognize that

[0:14] we are located in the traditional territory of the Lash people. Second

[0:18] item here is the adoption of the public agenda.

[0:21] » So moved. >> I've got an amendment to make to the

[0:26] public agenda. I'd like to move the encampment first.

[0:31] like to move the in camera first. Thank you.

[0:34] » Oh, and I would like to add an item of new business. I'm just looking for a an

[0:39] update on the quadrant shore accesses. >> All right.

[0:42] » Just a verbal update would be great. >> We need a motion as amended.

[0:45] » I'll move as amended. >> Second.

[0:49] » Thank you. All in favor is carried. Unanimous.

[0:55] So, let's go to in camera.

[1:01] Have to clear the gallery here.

[1:31] We had best make those motions to move in camera, I guess, to do this properly.

[1:36] » Uh, did you do that already? >> No, we didn't make those motions.

[1:41] » That the close session report from the CEO be received. Before we do that, we

[1:45] should make the proper motions to move in camera from the

[1:49] » Well, don't we have to receive the report from the CEO and then we move to

[1:52] meet Yeah. move to close. Okay. So, >> you need a second.

[1:57] » Yes. >> Second,

[1:58] » director Rice. Thank you. All those in favor?

[2:01] » It's unanimous and carried. And I will move that the meeting be closed to the

[2:06] public to consider matters deemed to fall within the parameters of

[2:08] subsections 91, FI, JN, and O of the community charter.

[2:16] » Second, please. >> Second rice. All those in favor.

[2:21] Unanimous again carries. Okay. All right. Continuing with our agenda

[2:27] that we have no position delegations. the adoption of the previous minutes of

[2:31] July 15, 2026. >> Move adoption.

[2:35] » Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor?

[2:39] Anonymous and carried. No business arising. Do we have any?

[2:48] No public considerations. No motions. No chairs report. We're under K staff

[2:52] reports. Number one, receial community plan project update for receipt.

[2:57] » Move receipt. Second >> and I believe planning staff will speak

[3:01] to this. Mr. Chair,

[3:08] » thank you to the committee through the chair. Uh this report is to provide an

[3:12] update on the area C OCP review project. Um not a lot to report on this month. We

[3:17] have sent out the workbook uh mail out uh and the online version is now live on

[3:22] the web page um which has now been updated. Um, we're also getting into

[3:28] phase three now, which includes, um, consolidating everything that we've

[3:31] gathered over the past few months, um, and organizing it into themes, um, and

[3:36] preparing to start drafting into policy language, and a draft will hopefully be

[3:40] coming soon. Thank you, >> Dr. Muay.

[3:44] » Thank you. Thank you for the report, and thank you for all the work. I did notice

[3:48] that the web page had been updated including all of the what we heard

[3:51] reports which was really great to see all of those um online and really great

[3:56] also that the remote residence workbook has been distributed during this uh

[4:00] summer season so that if there are seasonal residents out there they'll

[4:04] also be able to receive a copy. So I just really wanted to say thank you for

[4:08] that. That's awesome. And I did have a couple of quick questions. Oh, I was

[4:12] just curious what the coding is that is happening right now that's mentioned in

[4:15] the report and it says there's data consolidation and coding and I wasn't

[4:19] sure what it meant and I wasn't sure if it meant you were using AI to extract

[4:22] themes or draft objectives and I was just wondering if you could explain what

[4:26] that actually meant.

[4:30] Um, no AI, we're not that fancy, but just organizing the data into themes so

[4:35] that we can have different policy sections organized accordingly.

[4:39] » Okay, amazing. Thank you. And um I was curious about the next steps

[4:45] specifically. It says in there that the sharing the key draft sections of the

[4:48] OCP and mapping for community input is coming up next. And I was just curious

[4:53] if those will be open houses which are kind of drop in h so that folks could

[4:57] take a look and offer their comments. And I was wondering if you were

[5:00] considering having uh offering that in Harriet Bay as well as in Quaeski Cove

[5:07] just because I think it might be beneficial for that those neighborhoods

[5:10] to have easier access.

[5:14] » We can certainly explore uh multiple locations for that.

[5:19] » Okay. Amazing. Thank you. That's everything chair.

[5:22] » Anything further? Call a question on receipt. All those in favor? unanimous

[5:27] again and carried. Number two, development fair permit application

[5:32] Lewis Road for receipt. >> Move receipt.

[5:35] » Second. >> Second.

[5:36] » Thank you. >> Planning staff will speak to this. Mr.

[5:39] Chair, [snorts] >> thank you. Good morning everyone.

[5:44] The development variance permit application DV 40D26 proposes to vary

[5:49] the front yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.55 m to allow construction of a

[5:55] covered recreational vehicle parking area. The property owner uh had provided

[6:00] a site plan and design from a home designer originally. however, has worked

[6:04] with staff to achieve greater compliance with the zoning bylaw. And a rough

[6:09] sketch of the site layout that includes a dwelling unit with attached shop and

[6:14] garage with a suite above is included in the report. The suite is intended for a

[6:19] family member and would allow multigenerational living on the site and

[6:25] um also included uh is the covered RV parking structure shown encroaching into

[6:31] the front yard setback. The variance request is made in part to respond to an

[6:36] environmentally sensitive area ESA located on the east side of the property

[6:41] and to allow a greater usable area as backyard. And the applicant has shown

[6:47] this location [clears throat] as a septic field which will be reviewed

[6:51] by Island Health and the applicant has engaged a QEP to provide initial

[6:57] calculation for the maximum development footprint.

[7:01] um that is uh permitted and uh is it also deter determines that

[7:09] undue hardship is present on the site meaning that uh the restrictions of the

[7:14] uh riparian area the stream protection and enhancement area um will be

[7:20] encroached minimally and this application will determine the amount of

[7:25] encroachment that the QEP proposes to the province in a future development

[7:30] permit. application. Um the province has to accept that prior to DP issuance um

[7:36] by the regional district. So the owner uh initially brought forward an

[7:41] application that requested a greater variance which was from 7.5 m to 3.05 05

[7:48] m and statutory notification as required by the local government act was

[7:53] completed and the regional district received one letter in support. Two

[7:58] neutral responses and 21 with concerns and objections.

[8:03] All confirmed uh responses were from neighboring addresses and the initial

[8:10] proposal had a shop within the front yard setback and proposed a greater

[8:16] variance uh which was to the zero or sorry 3.05 m. Concerns from neighbors

[8:22] included uh impact to the street and neighborhood character and setting a

[8:29] precedent which specifically related to the proposed variance. And then uh the

[8:34] mature neighborhood of course is established and has a strong street wall

[8:39] with homes located outside of the 7.5 m front yard setback and lined with trees

[8:44] and vegetation. Um, other concerns were about the riparian area and drainage and

[8:51] the landowner removing trees and vegetation without a permit to protect

[8:55] the water course and the quality of the applicant's site plan was also noted.

[9:02] Um, pardon [clears throat] me and lack of details of the building. The

[9:07] notification only included the revised site plan from

[9:12] the applicant, not the uh site plan and building design from the home builder as

[9:18] they were saving some um um money in actually applying for the variance. Uh

[9:25] they are working with the home designer though however um so this application uh

[9:33] went to the area D advisory planning commission um but they did not have a

[9:37] quorum so we don't have any recommendation from them. The applicant

[9:42] was made aware of the concerns and as a consequent revised the application to

[9:48] lessen that encroachment into the front yard to 40% from 60% originally. The

[9:53] variance application is to vary that setback from 7.5 meters to 4.5 meters,

[10:00] 4.55 meters to allow the covered RV pad instead of the shop. The revision also

[10:07] removed the requirement to vary a second section of the bylaw and make an

[10:12] application to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit for anything

[10:16] located within five 4.5 m of the property line on a local road. Uh there

[10:23] were two responses to the second notification provided in accordance with

[10:27] the requirements of the local government act for the revised variance. The

[10:31] letters uh received there were two of them by email note opposition and their

[10:37] previous concerns. And in addition, one of the letters notes the proximity to a

[10:42] well that exists on their property. Um and it should be noted that any septic

[10:47] proposal will be at the discretion of Island Health for approval.

[10:52] As noted in the report summary, if the variance is not approved, the owner

[10:57] could reconsider their building plans and adapt to the constraints of the

[11:00] riparian area and zoning bylaw. Um, the QEP will then base the report to the

[11:06] province and the variance that will be requested for encroachment into the SPIA

[11:10] on the decision of this application. and the applicant has reduced to uh

[11:16] worked with staff to reduce the front yard setback and SPIA encroachment

[11:21] um and the resulting impacts. They will be required to follow through with the

[11:26] uh QEP recommendations and uh development permit application as well.

[11:31] Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

[11:35] » Thank you chair [clears throat] and thank you staff for the report and the

[11:38] update on that. Uh just uh I have a a lot of questions and this is actually a

[11:44] little bit more complicated than it it looks like. Uh the uh biggest issue that

[11:49] I had to grapple with is that this is actually a legal uh building lot. And

[11:54] when we take a look at a legal building lot, um all building lots provide a

[12:00] certain uh footprint that is available to build, but this lot doesn't do that.

[12:05] Is that correct? >> Thank you for the question through the

[12:08] chair. Uh that is correct. It is um still a buildable footprint um

[12:14] considered a buildable footprint um based on uh regional district by law. Um

[12:19] however the constraints of the riparian area are what is providing um less area

[12:25] and the undue hardship is noted when AQEP recognizes that there is either

[12:31] less than 30% or 40% based on calculations that they do um available

[12:36] for a building footprint and the province then assesses those

[12:40] calculations and makes a determination on that.

[12:43] » Right. And thank you for that. And the uh when I read the original submissions,

[12:49] um the assumption from um the I'll call it a form document or a form letter, the

[12:55] assumption is that this is merely a um I guess a a nuisance and it's misguided in

[13:02] that the hardship isn't real. And yet if you take a look at the actual uh

[13:07] repairing act uh under British Columbia's uh repairing protection area,

[13:12] a wrap hardship or undue hardship refers specifically to a legal and technical

[13:18] provision for properties that are so severely constrained by environmental

[13:22] buffers, specifically the stream protection and enhancement area. So is

[13:27] that a correct statement? So this lot does fall under that

[13:31] um I guess uh that guideline. >> Thank you for that uh through the chair.

[13:37] That is correct. The QEP is the uh professional that will provide that

[13:42] determination ultimately but that's correct under the act. Yes.

[13:46] » Just a follow-up question. I see that you know we have two options. One is

[13:50] either to to grant the variance. The other option is to not grant the

[13:55] variance. um when local government doesn't grant the variance in the case

[14:02] of a rap hardship, uh what does that do then for the province in being able to

[14:08] evaluate uh um how they're going to proceed with that?

[14:14] » Thank you again. Uh the province will assess the uh requested variance and

[14:21] encroachment into the SPIA in the same way. um they recommend that the local

[14:26] government is approached for a variance first so that that encroachment would be

[14:32] less into the SPIA.

[14:37] » So in in this case you did mention that um if we don't grant the variance there

[14:42] is still um enough of a footprint so that they can build. Is that correct?

[14:50] » Thank you for the question. Um, yes, they would be able to build on this

[14:54] site. They would have to alter their building plans and not be able to build

[14:59] to suit to what they have as needs of the site.

[15:03] » Thank you. >> Anything further?

[15:05] » No. Winning. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

[15:10] Um, I I just uh had a I appreciate the the questions uh from Director Rice and

[15:17] they have helped me pro provide me with a little bit of clarity, but I'm I'm

[15:20] just questioning something that is in some of the correspondence from the

[15:25] community members about the timeline of sending out notifications and um them

[15:31] receiving less than 72 hours to respond. I think it had something to do with the

[15:38] timing of I'm not sure board meetings and long long weekends and things like

[15:42] that and and so um you know they it was enough of a concern that they decided to

[15:50] explain the timing that the letters were dated July 27th but the envelopes were

[15:55] postmarked July 29th and they received their letters August 4th and um they had

[16:01] until the end of uh Friday or the Saturday the 7th or 8th to respond. And

[16:07] I guess I'm just wondering like from like a logistical point of view, is

[16:12] there something that we can be doing here to um

[16:19] provide a little bit more timeline for people to respond because, you know,

[16:23] people don't check their mailboxes every single day. So I I have a concern that

[16:28] there may not have even people may have received the letter after the deadline.

[16:34] And I know that there's a constraint of I think is it 10 or 14 days that it

[16:38] can't be sent out too early, but I'm just wondering if if there would be

[16:42] something that could be beneficial as far as like maybe like scheduling

[16:46] meetings or something to provide a little bit more space for that to

[16:50] happen. >> Um [clears throat] thank you for the

[16:53] question through the chair. Uh this is a question that has come up before and so

[16:58] um yes, the local government act does um regulate notification times. we already

[17:03] extend that period. Um that's why uh that notification was sent out prior to

[17:08] this meeting uh not the board where the decision is ratified. Um so ultimately

[17:15] we have already extended the notification period to give um the

[17:20] community an additional I guess two weeks prior to the decision making point

[17:26] which is the board meeting. If I may have a follow-up, chair, I guess my

[17:31] concern or or question is really that the letter according and I we I haven't

[17:36] seen the letter because it wasn't included the not you know the statutory

[17:39] notification letter wasn't included in the report but um there's comments from

[17:43] from community members who are saying that it states a deadline of August 8th

[17:48] at I think they said at noon. So while that I mean that that date is already

[17:54] passed here and you're saying that it's still open until the board meeting. So

[17:57] is there a way that there the language in those letters could be modified in

[18:02] order to provide people uh a more holistic understanding of well if you

[18:07] want the committee to consider your correspondence it needs to be received

[18:11] by this date. However ultimately until it goes to the board we have time to

[18:17] receive your correspondence. >> Um yep most of those letters do include

[18:20] the board date. If if this one didn't, then that would have been an oversight,

[18:23] but that is >> I don't I didn't see the letter.

[18:26] » That would be a standard feature of of our notification letters.

[18:29] » And if I could follow up on that, um in this case, uh the letters were sent out

[18:34] 15 days prior to uh the regional board making a resolution. Um the board um and

[18:43] corporate is always very good about late items received and the language in it is

[18:48] around when uh the electoral area services committee reviews and makes a

[18:54] determination and when the board also provides a resolution. Um and I did

[19:00] respond to the uh public [clears throat]

[19:05] uh input around that and assured them that we had met the local government act

[19:10] requirements um and extended it by an additional 5 days.

[19:16] » Okay, I thank you for that.

[19:21] » All right, nothing further. Call the question on receipt. All those in favor?

[19:26] You in favor? Director Winnie. Yeah, that's unanimous and carried. Now, we

[19:29] have two items of correspondence to receive.

[19:32] » Uh, I think there's a couple motions or all options, sir.

[19:36] » Yeah. >> Do we want to receive the correspondence

[19:40] first or not?

[19:45] » Have you not received the report? >> No, we did that. But item B has two

[19:50] items of correspondence to receive.

[19:57] Okay, >> we just move some we do the motion.

[20:01] » Could a motion to that? Please move >> Yeah, I'll move receipt of the two

[20:06] correspondents. >> Second, please. Second, director Vanesh.

[20:11] All those in favor. That's unanimous and carried. Director

[20:15] Rice, motion, please. >> Thank you, chair. I'd like to move

[20:19] option B that the not recommend approval of the development variance permit

[20:24] DV4D26 at 4774 Lewis Road and I'm happy to

[20:29] speak to it after >> second by Director Vanesh. All right,

[20:34] want to speak to it? >> Yeah.

[20:37] » Again, when I uh looked at this matter, this seemed like it was a pretty

[20:41] straightforward thing, but there is a lot of pieces. I think the part that uh

[20:45] changed my mind on uh which option to choose was the fact that um the

[20:51] applicants do have the option to build currently within the uh proposed

[20:55] setbacks and I think that is the option that uh the residents are looking for.

[21:01] Um my only concern with that and we'll have to see how the province makes their

[21:06] evaluation but uh if the uh applicants can modify their footprint on terms of

[21:12] what they want to build hopefully the repairing area won't be encroached too

[21:17] much. So that's why I chose option B because that seemed to be the uh option

[21:22] that residents are looking for. Thank you.

[21:26] » Another question on the motion. All those in favor?

[21:29] unanimous and carried. Number three, environmentally sensitive

[21:33] area development permit application done for receipt.

[21:37] » Move receipt. >> Second

[21:40] » and planning staff can speak to this, Mr. Chair.

[21:45] » Thank you. Um DP 3D25. Uh the property owners of 3030 Jodi Linway and 4059

[21:54] Southern Road in electoral area D have made application DP3D25

[22:01] for an ESAD DP to support subdivision of the land from two to three lots. The

[22:07] Stonefly Creek and an Eagle Nest Free Development permit area exist um and

[22:13] trigger the DP requirement and subdivision application is with the

[22:17] Ministry of Transportation and Transit as shown in the proposed site plan. The

[22:23] Riperian Area's protection regulation report related to subdivision has been

[22:27] accepted by the province and the regional district may issue the DP based

[22:32] on the QEP recommendations. Any additional land alteration within the

[22:36] DPAs may require a DP which will then be registered on the new lots and title of

[22:43] new lots if approved. In addition, there is an exist existing covenant that

[22:49] requires a 15 m buffer in the high water from the high water mark of the creek

[22:54] which is greater than the 10 m um setback setback that the QEP has applied

[23:01] and no further development is proposed within this 15 m setback as well. Um

[23:08] same for the 100 meter buffer for the eagle nest tree. The flood plane

[23:13] management by bylaw setback requirement of 15 meters is also met and no activity

[23:17] is proposed within the buffer. [snorts] The QEP report provides recommendations

[23:22] to minimize impacts to the DPAs to support the issuance of the DP uh for

[23:28] the purpose of subdivision. The property is compliant with regional district

[23:33] bylaws. And um if there are any questions at all, I'd be happy to

[23:38] answer.

[23:42] Dr. >> Thank you, chair. Um, there is a lot to

[23:46] unpack in this application because there's wetlands and eagle trees and

[23:50] statutory rights of way and access to SRD services. At least I wasn't sure,

[23:55] but maybe that is what is meant and that that's kind of my question. I'm

[23:58] wondering if you could provide a little bit more context on that piece. Uh just

[24:03] that I noticed that the report says that um it's talking about historical access

[24:08] permits and um if the access locations are shifted, updated environmental

[24:14] reporting and a new development permit would have to be issued. So my question

[24:18] is that considering that the shift for these access permits and I'm not sure if

[24:24] that means for sewer and water or what exactly that means or maybe it's just a

[24:27] driveway. I'm not totally clear. Maybe you could explain that. And then um it

[24:31] seems that the best practices by SRD staff would look be looking for that

[24:35] shift. I'm just curious if there are any allowances for reduced or waved

[24:40] application fees to make the shifting uh of those accesses more palatable to

[24:46] the applicant pending of course understanding what the accesses are

[24:50] because I that wasn't clear to me. Sorry. Thanks

[24:54] » through the chair. Thank you for the question. Um the access permits are

[24:57] historical uh issued in 1995. The ministry has in indicated that they will

[25:03] accept the same locations. Um staff did have conversation with the applicants

[25:09] regarding the locations and the riparian areas associated and that um should any

[25:16] land alteration take place in relation to those access points um that they

[25:22] would be required to either update the wrapper report to the um acceptance of

[25:28] the province or um if done after subdivision which I don't believe is

[25:35] likely it will be prior to subdivision approval. Um they would need a DP um

[25:42] issued that for the purpose of those access points which are driveways and

[25:46] culverts and um within the DPA.

[25:52] » Can I ask a backup question because so they're for driveways but you're saying

[25:57] that regardless of whether they're historical or updated, they will need a

[26:02] a development permit for them. Is that what I caught there?

[26:06] » Thank you. Uh to clarify, um driveway access points typically um when there

[26:13] are when there is a DPA are included in the riparian area reporting um

[26:19] initially. Um, in this case, they haven't been. Um, and it was only

[26:23] through discussion around those driveway access points that uh and in hopes of

[26:28] relocating them um that it was determined by the applicants that they

[26:32] would do that at a later date if necessary.

[26:35] » All right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

[26:38] » All right. Question on receipt. All those in favor?

[26:42] Manimanous and carried a motion. I make a motion.

[26:46] » Yes. >> Thank you, chair. I'd like to move that

[26:50] the committee recommend the approval of the environmentally sensitive area

[26:53] development permit for water course and bald eagle nest tree as attached in the

[26:59] staff report and that the corporate officer be authorized to issue the

[27:03] permit >> second

[27:04] » second by director any discussion all those in favor

[27:10] director in favor that's unanimous and carried number four Walters Cove Walter

[27:15] distribution system update study for receipt receipt

[27:20] Second it. >> Uh I think Wolf Fick will speak to this.

[27:26] » Morning chair. Morning committee. The purpose of this report is to um

[27:33] present the findings and the recommendations of the study uh Walters

[27:37] Co. Water distribution system upgrade done by Kors. Uh so Cors and Associates

[27:43] engineering completed a feasibility study for replacing and upgrading the

[27:48] water distribution system that serves residents and businesses in the Walter

[27:53] Cove area. The study reviewed existing water used,

[27:58] developed two conceptual system layouts, identified required approvals, prepared

[28:03] a preliminary cost estimate, and recommend its next steps for advancing

[28:08] the project. >> [clears throat]

[28:12] » Uh the study was fully funded by the provincial disaster resilience and

[28:16] innovation fund also known as drift. Uh so the study response to a servicing

[28:22] and licensing issue um identified by the province uh the ministry of forests in

[28:28] particular in 2022. The Ministry of Forest advised

[28:33] that the Kauka First Nation um could obtain a water license for service on

[28:39] treaty lands but did not have authority to continue supplying water uh to

[28:44] properties outside treaty lands without additional regulatory approval. Uh

[28:49] however, it is understood at the time uh KCFN did not wish to uh initiate this

[28:55] process. uh the province suggested that the SRD

[29:00] take responsibility for off treaty uh service area for for this um water

[29:05] distribution system. Um and that would be the most direct

[29:11] licensing option and and advised. Um so there would also be a joint works

[29:16] agreement with the first nations and that would be a requirement uh to access

[29:21] water under um [clears throat] a new structure. Uh the existing system

[29:27] operated by the Hayuk community association includes approximately 5 km

[29:32] of mostly underwater pipe that's submarine pipe and 28 metered

[29:37] connections. It serves an estimated 60 permanent

[29:41] residents increasing to approximately 200 people during the summer season.

[29:46] The proposed system was designed for a peak service population of 305 people

[29:52] and [clears throat] also would also allow service to be considered for home

[29:57] site island [clears throat] district lot 16009 Okami Island and Amos Island.

[30:07] Uh two layout options were evaluated. Is this working? [gasps] Uh the group

[30:13] layout uh meter option [clears throat] uh we call that option A would place

[30:18] meters on Walters, Escos and Kiki Islands. This configuration would see

[30:24] three distribution hubs with water lines extending from each hub to the

[30:28] surrounding sites. Uh compared with the centralized meter layout, option A would

[30:32] require approximately 1.6 kilometers less pipe. uh involve fewer crossings of

[30:40] existing electrical and telecommunications cables and likely

[30:44] result in lower construction and underwater maintenance costs. Um

[30:49] [clears throat] centralized meter layout, we call that option B. If you

[30:52] think about it like a um a bicycle tire, um Walters's Island would be the hub and

[30:59] then all the spokes would be the water lines that go out to individual islands

[31:04] um if if you want to picture it that way. So there would be no sharing of

[31:08] lines. [clears throat] Each line would have its own dedicated meter. So that's

[31:11] where that extra uh length of pipe comes from and additional costs.

[31:17] [clears throat] Uh the consultant recommends that the

[31:21] group meter option A layout uh be identified as the preferred concept. Uh

[31:27] subject to further consultation and design.

[31:32] » [clears throat] >> Uh the study identified a feasible

[31:35] servicing solution with preliminary class D capital cost estimated at 3.53

[31:41] $3.53 million excluding taxes. Uh the estimate includes a 50% contingency to

[31:48] account for the preliminary preliminary level of design and uncertainties

[31:53] related to site conditions.

[31:57] Okay. Thanks. final pipelinements um environmental and archeological

[32:03] requirements and regulatory approvals um would be captured in this. Uh the

[32:10] project will require several uh regulatory approvals uh typical of

[32:16] infrastructure projects as well as agreements with the KCFN

[32:20] as the source provider of water. Uh many of these reviews can proceed

[32:25] concurrently. However, approval timelines range significantly depending

[32:29] on the agency and the final project alignment. Uh the next phase should

[32:34] include consultation with all affected parties. Uh confirmation of the service

[32:39] area if if one is made uh water demands selection of the preferred layout and

[32:46] completion of the required assessments and approvals. Uh these steps would help

[32:50] provide a clear path for advancing the project toward uh detailed design. Uh so

[32:55] we have two options. Uh one that the committee uh recommend

[33:00] the regional district apply for additional funding to move Walters's

[33:03] Island water system into detailed design and b uh that no additional time be

[33:10] spent evaluating improvements to Walters Island water system. Thank you.

[33:15] » So if I may, Mr. Chair, just add my my two cents in here. I think we have uh a

[33:20] project that has more financial challenges than CUCO sewer. So

[33:25] So, uh, two two big challenges. One, uh, the chair, myself and Wolf are scheduled

[33:31] to go out to Kok here in the next couple weeks. And before that, I believe we

[33:36] have meetings scheduled with the the nation to determine their uh and I'm

[33:41] just going to kind of trying to high level characterize their interest in

[33:45] this licensing issue because I'm not 100% certain about that. But is there

[33:50] some willingness or requirement for the nation as a sole provider of the water

[33:57] to engage in this licensing permit process? So I think we want to determine

[34:02] that. Um and the the second of course is the the cost of the infrastructure

[34:09] obviously being in the millions of dollars and and very few homes to um pay

[34:14] for that. We'll obviously need to find some other source. And uh C finally is

[34:20] timelines associated with it. There's a current um uh agreement servicing that

[34:26] goes on now and uh this this has loomed over us for a number of years and I I'd

[34:32] like to know if there's a deadline date to this like um and if not you know what

[34:40] is the willingness to just keep this going on um by both the province and the

[34:46] nation. >> Got a one little question here. There's

[34:50] that little dotted line in page 10 that seems to be a water line to Okami and

[34:55] home site and also links over to a couple of properties on the mainland

[34:58] there that isn't really part of the report and I'm wondering you know

[35:03] suppose eventually this thing all went ahead. Is that line going to be

[35:05] eliminated?

[35:09] I think funding may impact that certainly right like um there's a lot of

[35:14] money that is required here like you know 99% of it so um I think what we

[35:22] would start with you know we need a funding opportunity there's there's no

[35:25] chance that we we waste our time going out to the people and saying you

[35:29] borrowed or this that the other so I I think the details of what gets serviced

[35:35] are going to be somehow linked to um access to funds.

[35:40] » Yeah. Do you want to just take a look at page 10 there for a second if you would

[35:43] and just

[35:56] » Edith is going to get there quicker than you are.

[35:59] » Yeah. >> You just scroll to page 10.

[36:06] Thank you for the question, Mr. Sure. Yeah. So, [snorts] basically

[36:11] » that dotted line, right? >> Yeah. It's

[36:13] » not part of the report. It's not part of the new water line, but yet it surfaces

[36:17] quite a few spots there. >> It does. Yeah. And it's headed over to

[36:19] Okami and Okami has um >> it's got water, but homesite doesn't.

[36:26] » Yeah. >> And the mainland, those three lots on

[36:28] the mainland there are linked in. >> Yeah. So, a lot of it will come down to

[36:32] a jurisdictional. Um, so if we did a service establishment bylaw, say we went

[36:37] forward with this, um, we would have to determine who's in it and who wants to

[36:42] be serviced. That'd be all part of it. So I did ask, um, Kors to initially the

[36:49] report was more about just Walters Island, but I've asked them to include

[36:52] the cove as an entire area. And I would anticipate that we would probably lay a

[37:00] line to to that Oak Island if we were to do a service establishment and go ahead

[37:05] with a major project. But that would be determined.

[37:09] » I [snorts] think another condition is how much water is available to be

[37:13] distributed from the nation. Right? That's I think there's a lot of

[37:17] uncertainty about how much water they have to provide to others and uh we're

[37:23] finding that there's a lot of leaks in the system. So that's challenging to

[37:28] find out um what's required and what's available.

[37:32] » Yeah, those lots on the mainland they're not part of the treaty lands or

[37:37] are they or do we know? >> Um

[37:43] some of them are, some of them aren't. So the school is has been transferred to

[37:48] treaty lands except there is still like a maintenance agreement that sits with

[37:53] the BC um lands and infrastructure I believe.

[37:58] » Right. It looks like First Nations is running water from the Huspas home site

[38:04] over to Homesite Island and up to their own property.

[38:08] Yeah, there's um a little bit of ambiguity and and some uncertainty for

[38:14] some of the properties, but anything that is not treaty and is being serviced

[38:19] would have to be considered to be put into um our establishment service area

[38:25] if we if it went ahead with it. So, all those details would be hammered out.

[38:29] » Yeah, just curious. All right. >> Okay. So, on receipt then, Dr. Mooney.

[38:34] » Uh thank you, chair. I I did have a just a question about it and really it kind

[38:41] of follows along with what our CIO said about this is an extremely challenging

[38:46] situation and and and Nick uh saying that we have 5 km of pipe already in the

[38:52] in the underwater submarine pipe and I'm just wondering

[38:57] what can we do as a committee like what if we if there's recommendations that we

[39:02] can make to the board for advocacy on on

[39:08] grandfathering in or some other way of having this service that's currently

[39:13] happening continue to be functional rather than facing the costs of over

[39:18] three and a half million dollars for a service for 200 residents. And really, I

[39:23] mean, we we hear a lot these days about how the province is facing their own

[39:27] financial constraints and fiscal constraints. And I'm wondering if

[39:32] perhaps they may be slightly more understanding um of the situation that

[39:37] that this is right where we are looking at millions of dollars and and meanwhile

[39:42] there's a a fairly sophisticated system that already exists with all of these

[39:46] submarine cables and water meters even to each individual property. So, I'm

[39:51] just looking maybe to our CEO if he has any suggestions. Maybe it I don't know

[39:55] if it's too late to request uh meetings with ministry staff on this during uh

[39:59] the pre-UBCM week. Um just looking >> just saying this is what we mentioned to

[40:06] the minister of state when she was here that

[40:08] » we did >> they grandfathered it. I mean this would

[40:10] solve the whole problem. But I'm just I think beyond me mentioning it to the

[40:14] Minister of State, what is the our next advocacy on this? Yeah. And how can we

[40:19] make sure that we're actually doing that work?

[40:21] » Well, I think um there's a few things. This one's complicated in terms of we

[40:25] don't own anything. We don't have the source water, all the infrastructure. We

[40:28] don't own anything. We don't have uh a service area there. So, a lot of it

[40:33] relies on the nation and their willingness to because um we have

[40:40] nothing to kind of grandfather in. Um I I don't even know who owns that line in

[40:46] the middle of the water. Um >> I think we did. We had a long-term loan

[40:51] and >> But who's we? Cuz we we don't have a

[40:54] service area, right? So the regional district doesn't Does the nation own

[40:58] part of it? Is is the folks on Walter Cove? I mean that that's a tricky one.

[41:03] We certainly don't own the source water. We're not in control of the licensing.

[41:08] So, it's a complicated problem that um we we need to share with the ministry.

[41:15] Uh one of the motions is that we continue and pursue additional funding

[41:19] which will um continue that narrative of the challenges that are going on and

[41:24] support because I I know we can alli figure this out without provincial

[41:29] funding. there's there's no chance anything can happen here. And yet these

[41:35] people rely on this water. And yet they'll also need to rely on the

[41:42] willingness and the participation of the nation to deliver it, which is seeing um

[41:49] direction from the province to engage in some licensing. There's liability issues

[41:54] there. There's do they even have the source water to provide it? they have,

[41:59] you know, they they train staff to operate and monitor it. There's just a

[42:04] bucket of complications here. Um, so I I think the option A is to help to to

[42:11] continue pursuing it and certainly it's an issue for conversation at UBCM to

[42:19] identify this unique challenge. >> Man,

[42:24] » uh, thank you, Chair. I'm wondering, you know, you mentioned that you're going to

[42:26] go out there and visit and and sort of meet with the nation and um get on the

[42:30] ground and and have a more [clears throat] detailed look at things

[42:32] there. I'm wondering if it's worthwhile deferring this until you've gone and had

[42:37] this had this meeting and and um met with the folks involved and and looked

[42:42] at things on the ground. >> Well, um uh the director and I have gone

[42:48] out to um Walters Cove, I don't know, seven, eight years in a row. um items

[42:55] out there take years and years and years. Um so we've engaged the

[43:00] conversation. We know that people out there are quite anxious. Um they're uh

[43:05] they have likely read this and have a number of questions and and next steps.

[43:09] So I don't know that deferring I mean that this will take years likely. Um I

[43:16] don't know if deferring solves any of those issues other than we keep pursuing

[43:22] the two things that are really challenging is one we need money for

[43:25] infrastructure that's for sure and then um the the willingness or the interest

[43:31] of the nation andor the province about what licensing they need to accomplish

[43:38] because there's not a whole lot in for the nation in that they don't they don't

[43:43] make any money off this. They're taking their water and they're delivering it to

[43:49] non nation properties. So I don't want to speak for them, but if you look at

[43:55] it, this the effort that needs to happen from the nation comes with little

[44:03] incentive other than to support their neighboring non-nation community.

[44:09] Director, I'd like to move ahead with option A when it comes past receipt.

[44:14] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. Just one comment that

[44:19] that I had is I wonder if the federal government has been queried on this and

[44:24] if it would be worthwhile to have our uh MP involved.

[44:30] » Another possibility in that the interesting thing there is it would be

[44:35] likely if it was federal government would be a partnership with the nation.

[44:39] And again, I don't want to speak on behalf of them or make any assumptions,

[44:43] but do they have an interest in that? Because their water service needs are

[44:49] are being met by themselves. They've got their water. They've put millions into

[44:53] the infrastructure, reservoir, generators, treatment, the whole nine

[44:57] yards. So, from their perspective, they may look at it and go, "Well, we're

[45:01] good. We don't need to partner. And if we do, is that just incurring more

[45:07] liability? Is that putting more stress on our water system and what is our

[45:12] incentive other than to be a you know a good neighbor if you will

[45:18] the question on receipt all those in favor

[45:22] and carried director >> I'll move option A that the committee

[45:25] recommend that the regional district apply for additional funding to move the

[45:29] Walters Island water system study into detailed design

[45:32] » second director all those in favor >> I I did have a comment I Just wanted to

[45:38] say that I I would be interested to hear uh from from you chair if you had any

[45:44] further thoughts on as well as moving option A as well as like working on more

[45:50] advocacy with the province because it does sound really complex but at the end

[45:53] of the day like you're the director representing the interests of those

[45:57] constituents who are feeling highly anxious and and wondering about their

[46:01] water and I'm just wondering how else we can advocate for this. This whole thing

[46:06] is contingent on the province and staff and myself will be in contact with them

[46:11] and do what we can with them. >> Thanks.

[46:14] » All right. Call the question and receipt. Did we do that already?

[46:17] » Okay. So, and the motion question on the motion. All those in favor and

[46:22] » that's unanimous and carried. >> All right. Down to bylaws number

[46:27] 664 electoral area D resoning Chantrell Way for receipt.

[46:33] » Move receipt. Did uh if I can jump in. Are we at bas

[46:39] or do we have another report? >> We get a second.

[46:43] » Okay. >> Do we have a second on that?

[46:45] » Second.

[46:49] » Okay. Forget I said anything.

[46:58] » Not on the bylaw, though. >> All right. Director Maloney,

[47:03] » I did have a question for staff. Um, just curious if staff anticipate that

[47:09] this resoning may predicate a need for frontage variances or development

[47:13] variance for permits in the future or if you were satisfied that the subdivision

[47:16] can be done without requiring variances

[47:21] through the chair. Thank you for that question. Um, we have analyzed the

[47:25] frontage requirements. Um, and it's anticipated that it will be compliant

[47:30] with all of the Strathcom Regional District bylaws.

[47:33] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[47:35] » All right. Question on receipt. All those in favor carried and unanimous.

[47:40] Dr. Ray's a motion >> like to move item B that notice be given

[47:44] in accordance with section 467 paragraph 1 of the local government act that the

[47:49] committee recommend that bylaw number 664 be forwarded to the board for first

[47:55] three readings and adoption >> second

[48:01] discussion there see none all in favor and carries item number two bylaw 666

[48:08] and by 667 Seven official community plan zoning bylaw amendments

[48:13] road and lagoon road for receipt. >> Uh move receipt.

[48:17] » Second. >> Anything from staff?

[48:20] » Nothing from staff. Mr. Chair. >> All right. On receipt. Director Money.

[48:26] » I had a question if if I may. I was just curious. Um you know it does seem it

[48:30] really appears to be a thoughtful and grounded in place application. I was

[48:33] curious if staff know and can share if any of this land is in the agricultural

[48:37] land reserve and if so if any of the proposed designations or zones and

[48:41] business plan align with the ALR's requirements.

[48:45] Thank you again for the question. Uh we had looked at the ALR designations and

[48:53] uh AL ALR uh land itself and to the south there's a property that is within

[49:00] the ALR. These two are not. Thank you.

[49:06] » All righty. On receipt. All those in favor?

[49:09] » I got something. >> I I can I can comment after receipt.

[49:13] » All right. [snorts] And on the receipt, all those in favor

[49:16] next unanimous and that's carried. Item B then. Director Nesh.

[49:21] » I'll move the committee recommended that bylaw number 666 and by law number 667

[49:24] be forged to the board for first and second readings.

[49:27] » Second. >> Second. And just a comment if I can,

[49:30] chair. >> Yes, go ahead.

[49:32] » I just want to thank staff for for really working um with the applicant on

[49:36] this um and and finding a way forward. I think it's a really exciting project

[49:41] that brings economic opportunity to Cortez and and really fits in with the

[49:45] with the with the culture here. Um also appreciate the Cortez Advisory Planning

[49:49] Commission for for reviewing the application, provided their input that

[49:53] uh that staff took and and um revised into what we're seeing today. Other

[49:59] question on the motion? All those in favor?

[50:02] Unanimous and carried. Item C. Director Ves, I'll move the committee recommended

[50:06] the board authorize a public hearing to consider bylaw number 666 and bylaw

[50:10] number 667 and that a public hearing be held at a date, place, date, and time to

[50:15] be determined. >> Second.

[50:18] » Second by Money. I just want to mention here that the staff normally uh we took

[50:23] a water taxi over to Cortez. Is that what you got planned this time?

[50:29] » Um, thank you through the chair. Um, we have not uh estab potentially yes, we

[50:33] haven't established when and where this would take place. So, that would be

[50:36] » water taxi because myself is going to attend in person and I think Dr. Money

[50:42] also will. Are you going to attend restoration?

[50:44] » I could. >> Okay. So, that could be three of us. And

[50:46] then the other little amenity is you bring a sandwich and a drink with you

[50:51] because you usually leave early before supper and we eat on the boat and

[50:56] » Okay. Do they noted? Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Call the question.

[51:00] All those in favor. Oh, director say there can't hear you.

[51:07] » Yeah. Just wondering if um staff could It sounds like you know everybody wants

[51:10] to attend this um public hearing. wondering if staff can sort of float

[51:14] some dates and times through to us um rather than just sort of picking a time

[51:18] if that's possible >> um through the chair. That is our

[51:21] standard process. Yes. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you.

[51:24] » Make it when when we're out in Ka.

[51:28] » All right. Call a question on the motion. All in favor?

[51:32] » Unanimous. Gary. Yeah, we could take

[51:38] no correspondence. Director's report. Serge Arrow store Heritage Designation

[51:42] for receipt. >> Move receipt.

[51:45] » Second. >> Second by director Rice. Comments.

[51:48] » Um, thank you, Chair. >> Um, a couple of weeks ago, I joined SRD

[51:53] staff at the Surgeon Bunk House for a community meeting about the Surgeon

[51:59] Arrows revitalization project. And I would say the biggest thing that was the

[52:04] topic and what I heard was from and sort of staff was that there was a big

[52:08] concern for preserving the historic store that this was the reason for the

[52:13] original grant application and it felt like something has got lost along the

[52:17] way that the store is now being considered for demolition and

[52:21] consideration of heritage designation was discussed at the meeting as possibly

[52:25] being a path to the building's preservation and renewal and that

[52:30] potentially Such a designation may help clear some

[52:33] of hurdles that may otherwise be in the way. Uh so it was definitely for

[52:38] unanimous from all Reed Island residents that were in attendance that

[52:43] this is the gateway to their community and the history of the structure mustn't

[52:47] be deleted in favor of something generic with no relationship to the community.

[52:52] In fact, someone actually stated that the SRD has done a marvelous thing in

[52:56] bringing the entire community together, which is a very challenging thing to do.

[53:00] [laughter] And since then, I have received uh this

[53:04] letter which is attached here from the surge revitalization committee on behalf

[53:08] of many community members asking for the SRD to provide heritage designation to

[53:14] the building. So, what I was hoping for, and I have a a motion here, um, is that

[53:20] staff could report uh on like an outline to the path to achieve the designation

[53:26] through the SRD and maybe like what the timeline that for that would look like.

[53:31] And also, I'm curious if the Heritage Conservation Service, which area CRD has

[53:36] in place, may have a role to play in this. And um I'm also curious about if

[53:43] this heritage if or how this designation may impact the revitalization project

[53:49] itself. So I do have a motion uh pending. Any other comments?

[53:54] » I think I think Meredith has plenty to supply

[54:00] » comments now. >> Uh thank you to the chair. Um uh yes

[54:05] certainly director Mooney I was at the same meeting of course um and so I'm

[54:09] familiar with what the ask is here just by way of background for uh those at the

[54:14] table um this is a project that is grant funded and must be completed

[54:18] construction by November of next year so we are on a very tight timeline for

[54:23] completing this this project. Um we are also under a tight budgetary

[54:28] restriction. So we are um cautiously proceeding with exploring the heritage

[54:34] component without derailing the the remainder of the project which

[54:39] ultimately um is the revitalization of this area and the the construction of a

[54:44] warf um which is the primary focus of this project.

[54:48] The original plan uh or the original concept for the store was that it would

[54:53] be revitalized or restored in situ. Um as this project progressed and

[54:58] assessments were actually carried out both on the um seabed and the the

[55:02] environmental assessments as well as on the building itself um it did become

[55:06] clear that under three contractors we were told um that the building was not

[55:11] restorable um and that actually a replacement was needed. So our question

[55:16] or the the project shifted then from a restoration of the artifact of the

[55:20] building to a demolition of the of the structure, a relocation to the foreshore

[55:26] and for that building to be um rebuilt in a heritage style. So that is what we

[55:33] were proceeding with. Um the question today is if the SRD were to pursue

[55:38] heritage designation for that building because that would be established by

[55:42] bylaw by the SRD board. Our question to the board would be um whether or not

[55:48] this board is asking us to pull that store out of this project. Again,

[55:53] because it's grant funded, we would need to speak to our funders and see if that

[55:56] imperils the entirety of the project or if it can be excised and the remaining

[56:01] warf uh left un untouched. Um again, because the whole thing needs to be

[56:07] constructed by November of next year, uh we would need some some swift direction

[56:14] on on what the intent is and and how much the board does wish us to pause on

[56:20] the building itself. I think if I just want to ask them to is

[56:26] what the intent is. If the intent is to include it as a heritage building, um

[56:32] that's going to be a challenge because we have communication

[56:39] um from contractors and engineers that the existing building, I don't know if

[56:43] anyone's seen it, it's very very old. Structurally, nothing is salvageable or

[56:49] restorable or reusable. So if the intent of this is to um reuse

[56:58] um material there, it it's just not going to be possible.

[57:04] So um I'm curious what the intent of the um the motion would be. What what what

[57:14] does the community ultimately want out of this? because if

[57:19] it's resto you salvaging that building that's just not going to be possible.

[57:30] » Thank you to uh CEO and and to Miss Starky for their comments. And um what I

[57:36] can say is that the community of uh Reed Island has been in communication with a

[57:44] somebody who also does uh heritage restorations for a living. They have a

[57:49] company and they have done an examination. They did a survey of the

[57:53] building and they concluded in at least in 2023 that the store was structurally

[57:58] sound although the underpinnings were seriously compromised. And I believe

[58:03] possibly that um staff has been communicating with this uh individual.

[58:07] There was talk about getting them connected at the meeting. Um and they

[58:12] that uh person who does specialize in heritage restorations of I guess like

[58:17] waterfront and water adjacent buildings uh felt that it wouldn't be that

[58:22] complicated in fact to to do the work. So I guess there's a bit of a difference

[58:27] of opinion. Um, and it would be nice to maybe just take a little bit of time to

[58:33] explore that with somebody that does have the experience that is a

[58:36] professional and and get a more of an a thought from them because uh

[58:43] I think ultimately at the moment the community would really like to see the

[58:48] building have some better piles underneath it and uh use it sort of as

[58:54] is where is. But they I obviously I've never even been in it. I've seen it from

[59:01] the outside, but it sounds like um it's all built with like old growth fur and

[59:07] it's been dry and it's just really the uh pilings that it's sitting on which

[59:12] are problematic from my understanding. >> So if I may, Mr. chair. I I don't want

[59:18] the waters to be muddied about um this group or individual says it can easily

[59:25] be restored. Um I have been in the building for my humble opinion there. No

[59:31] engineer is going to provide a report that you're going to substantially maybe

[59:39] we have that or not. But um I I don't think it's fair to represent one group.

[59:46] I I don't know if this person's a qualified professional. He has any

[59:51] professional um

[59:54] ability to um certify the structural integrity. I would be shocked if anyone

[1:00:02] did. We have communicated with engineers, I'm sure Meredith will chime

[1:00:06] in, that do not support that opinion. So, I don't think it's fair to

[1:00:10] characterize say, "Oh, somebody says no problem." At the end of the year, this

[1:00:14] is a building. you're going to need to have an engineer certify this. And I

[1:00:18] think it's very, very unlikely you're going to get an engineer that's going to

[1:00:23] assess the structural integrity of that building and say is fine. But Meredith

[1:00:28] may have more. >> Uh, just for clarification there, um,

[1:00:31] yes, the community does have a a contractor um that has some connection

[1:00:36] to the island that has been speaking to them on on the idea of restoration of

[1:00:41] the building. We have reached out to them as we had committed to the

[1:00:44] community that we would do. Um they have not uh carried out an assessment of the

[1:00:48] site. Um they have offered a proposal to us to do that work um at a cost um an

[1:00:54] additional cost to the project and um potentially uh by the end of September.

[1:01:00] So not on an ideal timeline for us with this work, but something that we are uh

[1:01:05] willing to entertain uh as a matter of due diligence. But I I don't anticipate

[1:01:11] that the outcome would be different. Thank you,

[1:01:14] » Director. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I've also toured

[1:01:18] the the building and been inside uh a number of times, and you know, from my

[1:01:22] non-professional perspective, the the building is sort of collapsing into the

[1:01:25] ocean. Um, however, I do think there are things from the building that could be

[1:01:31] put into a new building. You know, there's some really neat old signs

[1:01:34] there. or there's perhaps some um you know some pieces and artifacts and and

[1:01:38] aspects of this old building that could be um could help make a new building,

[1:01:43] you know, have that connection. Um but yeah, I I'm quite shocked to say that to

[1:01:49] hear that that someone is saying that they this could be rebuilt. Um you know,

[1:01:54] I've walked it was dangerous. It was really dangerous just to actually walk

[1:01:57] in there. Um, and at that time, this was a couple of years ago, there was an old

[1:02:01] fellow living in that in that space. Um, and yeah, it was was really not

[1:02:06] adequate, but you know, it's a it's a really beautiful, you could you could

[1:02:10] see the history in the building. There's old there's still old things from the

[1:02:14] store on the shelves. Um, and you know, I think there's opportunity here to to

[1:02:20] not restore the building, but but use parts of the building to to to bring the

[1:02:24] spirit of the building into a new space. I would say that's a good

[1:02:29] characterization of how staff and the contractors

[1:02:34] uh have represented it. >> May I ask first of all

[1:02:40] » can I ask a question? I just um is it so I just wanted to clarify that that there

[1:02:46] is uh it sounds like there is a willingness to sort of um explore do

[1:02:52] your due diligence I think is the term that you use to explore this possible

[1:02:57] path and then will you be reporting back to us at the end of September? Is that

[1:03:01] kind of the idea? Um I suppose sorry through the chair. Um yes we have

[1:03:06] committed to the community that we we would speak to the representative that

[1:03:10] they've flagged for us. Um yes uh anticipating that we would probably need

[1:03:16] to come back to this board because depending on the outcome of of their

[1:03:20] assessment it could potentially change what is being proposed for this project.

[1:03:25] Um the only limitation there is that uh what timing they might actually be able

[1:03:30] to return that um is is somewhat to be determined. Uh and also we do need to

[1:03:37] proceed with the project in in advance of that report being received. So we are

[1:03:43] we will be working to create a tender package. I mean the tender package has

[1:03:47] been created but um to amend that t tender package so that we can adjust uh

[1:03:52] further if we need to. Um, however, we do not wish to imperil the entirety of

[1:03:57] this project to pursue this line of inquiry.

[1:04:00] » I I really appreciate that and I don't want to imperil the project either. So,

[1:04:05] I think that's great. And just um I'm not sure in that case um I do have a

[1:04:10] motion prepared that was just to uh ask for a report on what the next steps and

[1:04:15] timeline for heritage designation would be and the impacts on the revitalization

[1:04:19] project. And I guess I'm just wondering from the CEO's perspective or or or the

[1:04:23] chair or the staff perspective if it's necessary to make that motion or if

[1:04:29] there will be a report anyway. Sounds like there might be one anyway.

[1:04:33] » Um there I mean if the motion is fine if

[1:04:39] the understanding is this is not going to inhibit our current process and we

[1:04:44] can give you information on this. um what Meredith spoke to is is going to

[1:04:49] move forward and we'll bring something back um high level. I'm sure we could do

[1:04:54] that um in the next month um as long as it's understood that that that it's not

[1:04:59] contingent on um the progress where we're we're moving forward with.

[1:05:04] » Yeah, absolutely. And and I believe from the meeting that we had at Surgeon

[1:05:08] Arrows that it was kind of stated by staff that they would they were going to

[1:05:13] work on the warf part or the dock part first and so that there might be a

[1:05:19] little bit more space in there. So okay. Well then following receipt chair I will

[1:05:22] have a a motion to make. >> All right. Call a question on receipt.

[1:05:25] All those in favor that's unanimous and carried in your motion.

[1:05:29] » Thank you. I will move that the committee recommend that a report be

[1:05:33] prepared on the steps and timeline to achieving SRD heritage designation for

[1:05:39] the surge narrow store and include potential impacts to the revitalization

[1:05:44] project. >> Second

[1:05:47] favor and carried.

[1:05:52] » Any new business? I think we had an item.

[1:05:56] » We did. Thank you, chair. I was hoping that uh to get a verbal update on the

[1:06:02] Quadra Island shore access project. I know there's some paths that maybe

[1:06:07] needed to be cleared with a backhoe or something and I was just wondering where

[1:06:10] we were with that project. Thanks.

[1:06:18] » Uh thank you through the chair. Um yeah, so uh we continue sort of planning

[1:06:26] mainly on this project. Um we have I believe seven sites left from

[1:06:33] the original um list of sites that was compiled

[1:06:38] uh I believe in 2014. Um these are some of the remaining phase 2 or phase three

[1:06:44] sites. Um, so we have a couple slated for potential

[1:06:50] signage and minor minor trail improvements or trail development uh

[1:06:56] hopefully this year uh in conjunction with the uh Quadr Island Trails

[1:07:01] Committee. Um hoping to circle back with them when

[1:07:05] they're back in action in the fall. As I understand they usually take the summer

[1:07:10] off. Um, we do have a couple sites uh in the

[1:07:16] Gallon Harbor area that require uh more extensive work to create uh safe parking

[1:07:23] uh and turnaround areas for vehicles. Um so we still continue to work on planning

[1:07:28] for those sites um putting together more detailed cost estimates and working with

[1:07:35] Mott to determine our permitting requirements there.

[1:07:39] uh because they do require more extensive work. Uh we do anticipate our

[1:07:45] our preliminary discussions with Ma indicate um we likely need engineered

[1:07:52] designs for those structures. So that uh is an additional cost that um wasn't

[1:07:57] originally anticipated as part of the project.

[1:08:02] Um yes. And then we have a couple sites

[1:08:06] that uh are are sort of in a holding pattern. Um

[1:08:11] one um is in Q Cove where we have been having some ongoing conversations with

[1:08:18] uh the Wiiwakai First Nation as the site is adjacent to their property.

[1:08:28] » Go ahead. Thank you for that report and it's [snorts] great to hear that things

[1:08:33] are continuing uh at least in the planning phase. So do you anticipate

[1:08:36] that there would be a report coming back to this committee before uh budget

[1:08:43] season so that we director whoever it may be could uh look at that amount and

[1:08:50] determine if it was going to go into the parks budget for next year. Is that what

[1:08:53] the idea would be? I would think at the likely at the one-on- ons that would be

[1:08:57] something I don't think we'll have a separate report before that. Um

[1:09:02] obviously elections in October, the one-on- ones traditionally are in

[1:09:07] December. So I think we'll put all that together in an information package and

[1:09:12] kind of present that at the area C101 and then see what the director wants to

[1:09:18] move forward based on the information we provide.

[1:09:21] » Okay. And uh just one other quick question. You mentioned structures and

[1:09:25] engineered drawings, but are we not I thought we were talking about paths.

[1:09:31] » Um so through the chair um a couple of the

[1:09:37] sites uh don't have sufficient area for public parking. Uh so in terms of

[1:09:43] structures there we just need to build like a gra essentially widening of

[1:09:48] existing driveways creating um an area for public vehicles to turn around and

[1:09:55] park safely without impeding the existing private driveways that pass

[1:10:00] through the rightways. Um as well at at one site we due to the

[1:10:07] topography um and drainage at the site we will need to build uh like a

[1:10:13] staircase and some boardwalk. So those those are the kind of

[1:10:17] structures we're talking about. >> Okay.

[1:10:19] » Yeah. >> That's exciting. Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:22] » We have a motion to receive the verbal report.

[1:10:24] » We did. >> Second.

[1:10:27] » Second. >> Who moved it?

[1:10:30] You moved it. Okay. All those in favor? That's unanimous and carried. Motion to

[1:10:35] terminate. >> Second.

[1:10:38] » Thank you. All in favor? That's unanimous and carried. Thank you

[1:10:43] everybody. Thank you. >> Thanks everyone.

August 12, 2026 - Electoral Areas Services Committee Meeting

Transcript