[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.