Gambier Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, January 31, 2023

[0:00:00] our first budget session

[0:00:01] Voice 5: of at council in march um and certainly that's uh a deep conversation

[0:00:08] Voice 5: with uh 15 new voices at the table which is actually a significant number compared to

[0:00:12] Voice 5: previous years usually we get 11 12 13 people the coming news is 15 and it really shows a lot of the

[0:00:20] Voice 5: new voices to the table i'm very excited about that because that's what makes us

[0:00:24] Voice 5: but open diverse to small points of view.

[0:00:28] Voice 5: We're looking forward to that.

[0:00:29] Voice 5: So I'm not going to leave you with anything further.

[0:00:33] Voice 5: And Electoral Area Director report.

[0:00:37] This is unusual now.

[0:00:39] I have to turn

[0:00:39] Voice 4: it back to Kayler.

[0:00:40] Voice 4: Congratulations on that.

[0:00:42] Voice 4: Thank you.

[0:00:43] Voice 5: So known for this term,

[0:00:45] Voice 5: I'm also the Area F Director for Sunshine Coast Regional District.

[0:00:51] Voice 5: district. That includes the islands in the House Sound, apart from Poland, but it does

[0:00:57] Voice 5: not include area A islands or area B islands, which you are a part of. But I still, as part

[0:01:07] Voice 5: of the regional district, I represent you. So it's been incredibly busy just being orientated

[0:01:17] Voice 5: as original director and we began our 2023 deliberations for the budget although the

[0:01:24] Voice 5: timeline is the same I didn't realize until 10 days ago they actually have a January to December

[0:01:32] Voice 5: budget timeline that was in March even though their budget deliberations are exactly the same

[0:01:38] Voice 5: timeline as ours so I was a little confused anyway there is a placeholder a $25,000 placeholder for

[0:01:45] Voice 5: new Brighton DOC negotiations and considerations for community engagement, and that's to start

[0:01:53] Voice 5: sometime in the spring.

[0:01:54] Voice 5: That is a two-year holdover because staffing has been a concern, and also just discussing

[0:02:02] Voice 5: what opportunities there are with the Michigan Corporation, which is the corporate arm of

[0:02:10] Voice 5: the squamish nation but they are in touch with senior regional district staff and um but i

[0:02:17] Voice 5: understand that we're still awaiting the provincial water lease license application

[0:02:22] Voice 5: for any further considerations that particular issue other issues with ports uh is um we're

[0:02:30] Voice 5: having major inspections of the ports or the the docks on gambier as well as on the mainland

[0:02:37] Voice 5: land and those inspection reports are expected later this spring and that major inspections will

[0:02:43] Voice 5: also be considered later in the year for the other docks and also there was a major inspection done

[0:02:51] Voice 5: of the New Brighton dock on behalf of the Squamish nation and we're still waiting to hear the results

[0:02:57] Voice 5: of that. Water has been a big issue region district wise. There was ongoing concerns about

[0:03:05] Voice 5: a severe drought it's probably a burden but there is a proposed eastbound water system upgrade

[0:03:13] Voice 5: to the eastborn community it's about 170 users of that community system and it's a regional district

[0:03:22] Voice 5: well system so they are looking at increasing the ability for better and more quality water

[0:03:31] Voice 5: water we will have uh or a information meeting about the proposal coming out February 7th for

[0:03:40] Voice 5: Eastport community members and that will come soon so I can speak more to that later and that's all

[0:03:47] Voice 5: I'd like to report unless there's any questions rising no sounds like a lot of things going on

[0:03:53] Voice 5: there and it's good to listen for some thoughts so thanks to you

[0:03:59] Voice 5: it's pretty good any questions okay we'll continue on then so our first item um here

[0:04:10] Voice 5: business is delegations um karen uh pointer for the waterfront owners of fowlcroft from

[0:04:15] Voice 5: the island regarding the island for protection pilot project and related enforcement processes

[0:04:23] So

[0:04:23] Voice 5: welcome to our meeting, Deb, over to you.

[0:04:27] Voice 5: Thank you so much.

[0:04:28] Voice 5: Good morning, trustees,

[0:04:29] Voice 5: Lefkoe, Sanford, and Ferdinando,

[0:04:32] Voice 5: committee staff, and Mr. Dingman.

[0:04:35] Voice 5: As you know, I'm Eric Porter, we've all met,

[0:04:38] Voice 5: and I'm a delegate on behalf of a group of 14 owners

[0:04:41] Voice 5: of waterfront property in the community of Bowcroft

[0:04:43] Voice 5: on North Harvey Island.

[0:04:45] Voice 5: I'll refer to that group today

[0:04:46] Voice 1: as I have

[0:04:47] Voice 5: in my written submission as the effective waterfront owners,

[0:04:50] Voice 5: and I'm authorized by that group to speak on their behalf.

[0:04:53] Voice 5: With

[0:04:53] Voice 7: me are my

[0:04:54] Voice 5: co-delegates, Tara Laker and Sarah Chu, and we appreciate your time today.

[0:04:59] Voice 5: I'm here on behalf of the affected wire credit holders to ask the committee to provide guidance

[0:05:04] Voice 5: to the compliance branch of the Gallants Trust with respect to enforcement processes to be

[0:05:10] Voice 5: placed at Bowcroft in relation to seawall structures allegedly built within the 7.5

[0:05:15] Voice 5: litre setback allowance set out in section 3.273 of the bill.

[0:05:20] Voice 5: violence. We ask that such guidance include, if necessary and appropriate, directly the compliance branch to stay all such processes and

[0:05:29] Voice 5: affirm consideration of these matters to the contemplated poverty violence foreshore protection pilot project.

[0:05:36] Voice 5: I have provided a written submission with reference to documents. I understand perhaps some of the hyperlinks that I used in my

[0:05:44] Voice 5: submission were not live and accessible by the recipients. All of the documents were taken from

[0:05:51] Voice 5: the ILS Trust website, and hopefully you are probably familiar with all of them, having

[0:05:57] Voice 5: probably had a hand in creating some

[0:06:00] Voice 5: of them. But if there's any lack of clarity as to what document

[0:06:04] Voice 5: I'm referring to, please let me know, and if you have, I'll direct you to it. Historically,

[0:06:10] Voice 5: low-grass, 24 sandy, low-bank, waterfront living blocks have been particularly vulnerable to erosion.

[0:06:16] Voice 5: Since the subdivision was completed in 1959, there have been several major erosion events,

[0:06:21] Voice 5: where king tides and high northwest winds have combined to stabilize the activities of the foreshore and the upper areas,

[0:06:29] Voice 5: resulting in sudden and sometimes significant loss of property.

[0:06:33] Voice 5: Impacts have ranged from minor to major loss of frontage,

[0:06:37] Voice 5: which has had a shrinking effect on some property samples.

[0:06:41] Voice 5: At its worst, during a storm in the early 1970s,

[0:06:45] Voice 5: two cabins fell right off their foundations and into the sea

[0:06:48] Voice 5: after the sand beneath them eroded by a wave of action.

[0:06:51] Voice 5: For these reasons, many of the waterfront owners have built sea walls,

[0:06:56] Voice 5: perhaps more appropriately termed retaining walls,

[0:06:59] Voice 5: to protect their properties.

[0:07:01] Voice 5: So I just wish to be clear, these are not sea walls like it's down

[0:07:04] Voice 5: parts of the wall with a pedestrian walkway along the top. These are retaining walls intended

[0:07:10] Voice 5: specifically to stabilize things. The Beaucroft seawalls are modest structures. Some are made

[0:07:20] Voice 5: of piled aggregate rock, in some cases stabilized with small amounts of concrete. Others are

[0:07:25] Voice 5: made of wooden pilings that stood on end of the sand, four feet high. I won't comment

[0:07:32] Voice 5: on the date that each seawall was built,

[0:07:34] Voice 5: except to say that they have all been in place for decades.

[0:07:37] Voice 5: The issue of legal non-combatant use is live

[0:07:40] Voice 5: with respect to all of the seawalls.

[0:07:43] Voice 5: But I don't think we can get into that issue today.

[0:07:46] Voice 6: What

[0:07:46] Voice 5: is important to understand here

[0:07:48] Voice 5: is that these seawalls were built in response

[0:07:51] Voice 5: to actual storm-driven erosion

[0:07:54] Voice 5: that destabilized the foreshore and threatened homes.

[0:07:56] Voice 5: And they have done the job that they were intended to do.

[0:08:00] Voice 5: The shoreline has been largely stable for several decades, and I can speak to that because I've

[0:08:05] Voice 5: been a resident there for 50 years. These seawalls are as much a part of the bone-croft environment

[0:08:12] Voice 5: as any natural nature, and in addition to protecting homes, they preserve upland habitat

[0:08:19] Voice 5: for vegetation, birds, insects, and animals that would otherwise be lost to erosion.

[0:08:25] Voice 5: The value of these seawalls was demonstrated during the recent king tide of 17.7 feet on

[0:08:31] Voice 5: December 27, 2022. If you look at page three of the written provision, the photograph at the top

[0:08:39] Voice 5: of the page, this was taken from the SRE boardwalk north, which goes both from blocks one through three.

[0:08:48] Voice 5: Where the water is lapping at the seawall, it is at least two feet deep, and the distance from the

[0:08:54] Voice 5: sea walls to the improvements is no more than about 10-15 feet in some places, again due to

[0:09:01] Voice 5: erosion of the frontage that occurred before the sea walls were tilled. These sea walls keep the

[0:09:07] Voice 5: sandy banks from running into the sea. What's interesting about this picture is that we are seeing

[0:09:13] Voice 5: king tide and rain, but not wind. This is not a windy day, fortunately. Take away the sea walls

[0:09:23] Voice 5: and add a strong northwest wind, which is the prevailing wind in this area,

[0:09:27] Voice 5: to create wave action and batter the banks with these floating logs that you see,

[0:09:32] Voice 5: and these homes would be at risk of sliding into the ocean.

[0:09:36] Voice 5: According to the Green Shores Guide that the Islands Trust relies on to formulate its policies,

[0:09:41] Voice 5: these factors really favor keeping sea walls in place.

[0:09:46] Voice 5: This brings me to the events that have prompted this delegation.

[0:09:49] Voice 5: In January 2022, a strong winter storm caused damage to certain seawalls at the north end of the Brookcroft waterfront.

[0:09:57] Voice 5: Repair efforts were undertaken by some owners, with the advice of a professional engineer and the conditional approval of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

[0:10:10] Voice 5: The owners acted in good faith and believed that they were following the proper process.

[0:10:14] Voice 5: The repairs came to the attention of the compliance branch of the Islands Trust, which commenced

[0:10:20] Voice 5: an investigation.

[0:10:22] Voice 5: As a result, since February 2022, the compliance branch has issued written and or verbal warnings

[0:10:29] Voice 5: to the affected waterfront owners demanding that their seawalls and other structures within

[0:10:34] Voice 5: the setback zone be removed.

[0:10:36] Voice 5: Some have received by-law violation notices.

[0:10:39] Voice 5: Obviously, this is a matter of great concern for the affected waterfront owners who are

[0:10:45] Voice 5: feeling pressured to remove their seawalls and put their homes at risk or face prosecution.

[0:10:51] Voice 5: In the recent past, the Local Trust Committee has dealt with the seawall issue at Beaucroft

[0:10:57] Voice 5: very differently. In 2018, the committee initiated, but did not commence, the Farmerby

[0:11:04] Voice 5: Islands Foreshore Protection Pilot Project. I don't know very much about the origins of the

[0:11:10] Voice 5: project. However, in April 2019, Bocroft Waterfront Under Micadilla Cell at Lock 23

[0:11:17] Voice 5: brought a variance application to accommodate this pre-existing seawall by reducing the

[0:11:23] Voice 5: sludge flow and setback to 0.0 meters. The committee denied the application but declined

[0:11:29] Voice 5: to refer the matter to the client's branch and decided that more enforcement correction

[0:11:34] Voice 5: be taken, the committee further decided to update the pilot project to include, quote,

[0:11:40] Voice 5: a review of setback regulations and designation of a development permit area for the purposes

[0:11:46] Voice 5: of protecting the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity, and protection

[0:11:53] Voice 5: of development from hazardous conditions.

[0:11:57] Voice 5: Now, I should note that despite the committee's decision in the Dillisale matter, the compliance

[0:12:01] Voice 5: branch has issued bylaw violation notice against Mr. Gillisell for alleged repairs made to his

[0:12:06] Voice 5: seawall back in January 2022. Now, in January 2020, owners of Block 3, Deputy Bill Treloar,

[0:12:16] Voice 5: appeared before the committee to request a variance to increase the height of their rock

[0:12:21] Voice 5: seawall. Again, the committee denied the Treloar's request for a variance and instead referred the

[0:12:26] Voice 5: matter for consideration within the scope of the R&D Island's foreshore protection project.

[0:12:31] Voice 5: At that time, the staff and planner recommended that a review of the entire Bocroft Beach area be incorporated into the pilot project.

[0:12:39] Voice 5: Now, I should note that the treloars have not received any enforcement process since February 2022.

[0:12:49] Voice 5: In September 2022, the committee's planning staff recommended that the committee keep the pilot project on its future projects.

[0:12:57] Voice 5: That was your last meeting.

[0:12:58] Voice 5: So, there continues to be a commitment to that project, and we know that this recommendation

[0:13:05] Voice 5: is up for consideration by the committee in today's meeting that appears to be Agenda

[0:13:09] Voice 5: Item 10.2.

[0:13:10] Voice 7: The

[0:13:11] Voice 5: affected waterfront owners support the adoption of that recommendation and observe

[0:13:15] Voice 5: that the time has come for the committee to commence the pilot project to address this

[0:13:21] Voice 5: issue as soon as possible

[0:13:23] Voice 6: and squarely, thoughtfully, and evenly.

[0:13:25] Voice 6: The affected waterfront owners support the pilot

[0:13:32] Voice 5: projects and look forward to how the

[0:13:34] Voice 5: community can participate in it to bring forward expert evidence and make submissions to the

[0:13:39] Voice 5: committee at the appropriate times.

[0:13:41] Voice 5: For the affected waterfront owners, these properties are as much an emotional investment

[0:13:45] Voice 5: as a financial one, protecting them from destruction because of the amount of deforestation.

[0:13:51] Voice 5: However, protecting the natural environment is equally important.

[0:13:55] Voice 5: The affected waterfront owners want to be responsible environmental stewards.

[0:13:59] Voice 5: and believe that with a careful, balanced approach,

[0:14:02] Voice 5: both objectives can be achieved.

[0:14:05] Voice 5: Unfortunately, it does not appear that the compliance branch

[0:14:09] Voice 5: is aware of the impending pilot project

[0:14:11] Voice 5: or the committee's past practice of deferring consideration

[0:14:14] Voice 5: of BOPROC's C-walls to the pilot project.

[0:14:19] Voice 5: Given the committee's recognition of the need to review

[0:14:24] Voice 5: the setback bylaw in the BOPROC area,

[0:14:27] Voice 5: as stated in the Terms of Restriction of BOPROC,

[0:14:31] Voice 5: it is untimely for the compliance branch to be initiating enforcement processes in relation to

[0:14:37] Voice 5: those various setbacks now without the committee's immediate intervention we anticipate that the

[0:14:43] Voice 5: compliance branch will prosecute effective waterfront owners in relation to structures

[0:14:48] Voice 5: including but not limited to seawalls allegedly encroaching on a setback that

[0:14:53] Voice 5: may ultimately be reduced and these properties will be unnecessarily put at risk at the

[0:14:58] Voice 5: approach and construction. Given that the status quo can easily be maintained without negative

[0:15:04] Voice 5: impact on the waterfront, there is no reason why these enforcement processes cannot be paused

[0:15:09] Voice 5: while the private project runs its course and new bylaws and policies are considered.

[0:15:15] Voice 5: The principles of natural justice demand consistency in administrative decision making.

[0:15:21] Voice 5: The affected waterfront owners simply ask that the committee defer consideration of their alleged

[0:15:26] Voice 5: alleged encroachment setback to the pilot project in the same way that it deferred consideration

[0:15:32] Voice 5: of the Dulce Island-Trelork seawalls in 2019 and 2020. Accordingly, the affected waterfront

[0:15:41] Voice 5: owners respectfully request that the committee give appropriate guidance to the compliance branch

[0:15:46] Voice 5: sufficient to result in a stay of all enforcement processes and investigations against them

[0:15:51] Voice 5: in relation to alleged violations section 3.373 of the land use bylaw pending the outcome of

[0:15:59] Voice 5: barbie islands for shore protection project and that they could be permitted to maintain

[0:16:04] prepare their seawalls

[0:16:07] Voice 5: as necessary for the intervening period those are my

[0:16:11] Voice 5: submissions thank you for your attention

[0:16:14] Voice 5: I hope that answers your questions.

[0:16:18] Voice 5: Thank you. Steve, do you have any questions for the public?

[0:16:25] Voice 5: I've got a few questions.

[0:16:30] Voice 5: And I just really, my impression from your submission is actually fairly straightforward, but I just want to review some of my notes here and see if I understand it.

[0:16:41] Voice 5: but I'm just going to try to summarize what I think you said that went fast and we might have

[0:16:47] Voice 5: got it right whether that's a fair summary what I've heard you say is that the folks up in

[0:16:54] Voice 5: Beaucroft their properties are a little different and unusual from those in the other islands

[0:16:58] Voice 5: because for geotechnical reasons your area is very sandy and seawalls were put in generations ago

[0:17:07] Voice 5: committing it against that prior to island structure and those are necessary to prevent

[0:17:13] Voice 5: prevent the cabins that have also been in families for generations being washed away

[0:17:16] Voice 5: and also protect the uplands which has wild habitat and i hear you saying that this very

[0:17:26] issue has actually been brought to this committee's attention in the past and the

[0:17:31] Voice 4: thrust of what it's

[0:17:32] Voice 4: done has been to direct staff to look into the issues through this pilot project in the meantime

[0:17:39] Voice 5: though uh events have transpired that led to enforcement staff uh issuing determination

[0:17:45] Voice 5: termination letters and no bylaw notices of violation to Island residents with respect to

[0:17:52] Voice 5: DC walls. So you've come here asking for some very straightforward relief from the sounds of it,

[0:17:58] Voice 5: which is you just want the enforcement action not halted, but to be paused until this bigger

[0:18:04] Voice 4: picture is sorted out via this pilot project, which this committee has already authorized in

[0:18:11] Voice 5: a sense to look into the very questions here in terms of them. Is that a fair summary?

[0:18:17] Voice 5: Yes, Trustee Panetta, that is a fair summary.

[0:18:19] Voice 5: Okay. For the record, I have to say that I'm in a disability here, the same disability that

[0:18:29] Ms. Poynter has brought out, which is I don't understand or know anything about this pilot

[0:18:38] Voice 5: project. A lot turns on it, a lot turns on its terms of reference. I'm wondering if staff is in

[0:18:45] Voice 5: in a position to inform us of that.

[0:18:50] Voice 5: Yeah, I can, I

[0:18:53] Voice 8: guess what I can offer is

[0:18:54] Voice 8: the project was never initiated by the LTC.

[0:18:57] Voice 8: So we have a large project list,

[0:18:59] Voice 8: which is where projects, basically,

[0:19:03] Voice 8: there's a future projects list and an active project list.

[0:19:06] Voice 8: And this has been part of what I gather since 2013

[0:19:11] Voice 8: on the future projects list.

[0:19:12] Voice 8: So never initiated, there was a workshop

[0:19:18] Voice 8: workshop that was held, I guess, back in 2019. It was part of the Green Shores Initiative,

[0:19:24] Voice 8: so the LTC from 2017 to 2019 had a membership in the Green Shores for Homes organization,

[0:19:32] Voice 8: and as part of that

[0:19:34] Voice 5: membership, the workshop was held. Or maybe it was chosen and the workshop

[0:19:39] Voice 5: was held there, but it was an LTC project. It was held by the Green Shores folks.

[0:19:45] Voice 5: So as an ancillary thing that is related to the issue, but wasn't a component of the

[0:19:55] Voice 5: project that we're talking about.

[0:19:56] Voice 5: Right.

[0:19:56] Voice 5: There's no project charter, so there's no terms of

[0:19:58] Voice 8: reference, there's just, there's

[0:20:00] Voice 8: no project.

[0:20:01] Voice 8: There's just a commitment to look into this project when it, you know, the LTC would have

[0:20:09] to

[0:20:09] Voice 5: provide direction and choose that as their priority project.

[0:20:15] Voice 5: This might be an unfair question, but you're the only person I know to ask, so you're going to get it.

[0:20:22] Voice 5: What we've heard is that there were various applications that were orbited around this issue.

[0:20:30] Voice 5: The local trust committee essentially

[0:20:34] Voice 4: didn't engage the issue and would want to defer it

[0:20:37] Voice 5: or rather transfer the question over to the project to look at it.

[0:20:42] Voice 5: And when I was looking at these agendas, I can see that there was in the minutes of the

[0:20:50] Voice 4: September 2022 meeting, there's a reference to this project being carried over from 2018, but I thought I heard you say it's 2013

[0:21:00] Voice 5: is when it started.

[0:21:01] Voice 5: I believe that's when the initial discussion, I hope you don't know the date, but go ahead.

[0:21:08] Voice 5: I would like to suggest at the time the bylaws, the new North

[0:21:16] Voice 5: Armenian Associated Island bylaws were being considered,

[0:21:19] Voice 5: this issue was front and center and that there was a recommendation.

[0:21:24] Voice 5: And I was a minute taker at the time, I was not a trustee,

[0:21:28] Voice 5: but there was a recommendation that further DPAs were put into this area.

[0:21:36] Voice 5: And that was the recommendation planners at the time that was not accepted by the community.

[0:21:43] Voice 5: And so that was sort of, as I understand, was the start of the concerns around the level of development in the foreshore area and the structures in that area.

[0:21:56] Voice 5: So it was like remaining at a 7.5 setback, but what can we do to better support the processes on what is considered a very delicate ecosystem?

[0:22:13] Voice 5: And I recognize the community also wants to support the uniqueness of that particular ecosystem.

[0:22:20] Voice 5: system and the walls are one part of that but there's a gamut of issues related to

[0:22:26] Voice 5: the um the area in the foreshore so that was my first connection with this particular issue

[0:22:37] Voice 5: and then as you move forward it was how do you encompass that into this project how do

[0:22:43] Voice 5: we've engaged the community in a way that makes their modernizing features more amenable because

[0:22:53] Voice 5: there was very little support for any kind of restrictions to um any kind of structure

[0:23:00] Voice 5: so that's my recollection and that's why it could go back that far but it actually was right at

[0:23:08] Voice 5: their associated island bylaw i think that was adopted in 2013.

[0:23:15] Voice 7: yeah so

[0:23:16] Voice 4: are you saying that uh

[0:23:18] Voice 4: the this uh the notion that there ought to be a pilot project emerged out

[0:23:25] Voice 5: of um i guess there's

[0:23:28] Voice 5: no other way of putting it the failure of uh other proposals to create development permit

[0:23:34] Voice 5: areas at the time the local residents didn't think that was the right solution for whatever

[0:23:39] Voice 5: reason uh we don't have to go into that now um but so in

[0:23:45] Voice 4: 2013 the ltc initiates the idea that

[0:23:49] Voice 4: there ought to be this project and then it sounds like nothing's actually been

[0:23:55] Voice 5: done since then

[0:23:57] Voice 5: except subsequent ltcs have made referrals basically to this phantom project that doesn't

[0:24:05] Voice 5: exist does that sound fair i mean i you could say that in a bigger picture but i think when

[0:24:15] Voice 5: when i'm looking at variances that come before the local trust meeting i look at the specific

[0:24:24] Voice 5: property at the time and part of what concerns me is when i see something that is

[0:24:31] Voice 5: being adjusted or maintained, or if there's been additions to the seawall, then that becomes

[0:24:39] Voice 5: a concern.

[0:24:40] Voice 5: So we deal with that particular property and whether or not the specific circumstances

[0:24:50] Voice 5: of that property warrant maintenance for increasing quality in particular, even when we talk about

[0:25:01] Voice 5: the the variance that was not issued in 2019 that was a specific property the variance did

[0:25:10] Voice 5: not apply to anywhere else

[0:25:12] Voice 5: but beyond guidance it wasn't applicable to the neighbors right

[0:25:16] Voice 5: but that's not the question i mean the question is right but this isn't about

[0:25:24] Voice 5: what happened with the variances or the reasoning behind it

[0:25:27] Voice 4: it's we've got a delegation here that

[0:25:30] Voice 4: say people today aren't being treated fairly because they're actually not being treated in

[0:25:35] Voice 4: the same way that previous people have been treated which is that the issue that was around

[0:25:42] Voice 4: those various applications which were denied but that issue of the erosions and the concerns which

[0:25:49] Voice 4: is why they were making those applications was handed off for examination not you know and to

[0:25:57] Voice 4: get some and to get recommendations from staff through this project so the issue for us today

[0:26:03] Voice 4: is what do we do about the fact that we seem to have this

[0:26:07] Voice 5: project nothing's been done about it

[0:26:10] Voice 5: but the terms of the project are aren't recorded but based on the information at least has been

[0:26:19] Voice 5: provided to us today uh it appears that the local trust committee had an intention that

[0:26:26] Voice 5: this specific issue be examined in a kind of nuanced way that had actually studied

[0:26:31] Voice 5: that we don't have the answers now i mean otherwise why would you need to have the

[0:26:37] Voice 5: pilot project i i don't think it's a question of just whether or not it's you don't have the

[0:26:44] Voice 5: answers right now it's how the community wants to engage that's part of the project because

[0:26:51] Voice 5: Because there seems to be a point

[0:26:56] Voice 5: where people want to be able to build

[0:27:01] Voice 5: and increase their protection, they're using the walls.

[0:27:06] Voice 5: How do we fit into that?

[0:27:08] Voice 5: And what is appropriate?

[0:27:09] Voice 5: What is, and how does the community support that or not?

[0:27:14] Voice 5: So that to me is the more critical question.

[0:27:16] Voice 5: We can have experts come in and do best case scenario,

[0:27:20] Voice 5: But it is what is the reasonable expectations of the community, and what are the reasonable expectations of the Trust Committee to protect natural processes?

[0:27:33] Voice 5: So that's the part that has to be...

[0:27:35] Voice 5: I hear you, but I think you're agreeing with me.

[0:27:38] Voice 5: Sorry. Go ahead.

[0:27:40] Voice 5: That is the question that I think is critical here. I would like to see this move forward.

[0:27:47] Voice 5: but I also think it's really important that when land owners have a situation that's a problem,

[0:27:55] Voice 5: they are facing erosion, that they also do come to the Trust Committee to get that examined

[0:28:02] Voice 5: first before they go ahead and make those adjustments. So that's the part of wanting to see

[0:28:11] Voice 5: happen, that even if, and then we then have a response, each individual property

[0:28:16] Voice 5: that that we have a specific state and state not to move forward with anything or that

[0:28:24] Voice 5: we don't go forward on particular um bylaw distractions so i just want to

[0:28:34] Voice 5: before we pull that but does that make sense that's sort of where my question is so i was

[0:28:43] Voice 5: hoping i can get a response from the bylaw enforcement officer in general how they approach

[0:28:50] Voice 5: these kinds of situations let's not bring in mr dickman quite yet i think we need to

[0:28:59] Voice 5: um if you're able to but if you're not um i'm not sure i agree with the way you're framing

[0:29:07] Voice 5: the issue in fact and i should be careful here i'm not sure i'm but understanding because

[0:29:13] Voice 5: Because what I've heard is, what I'm hearing from you is, what should be the content of a project, of the things that how it ought to be done, which is engage the community, work with the community to figure out what is appropriate, together with expertise from the staff side, and develop a way of dealing with this issue.

[0:29:44] Voice 5: but

[0:29:44] Voice 4: the problem we have right now is uh enforcement is on one track but

[0:29:51] Voice 5: it appears

[0:29:52] Voice 5: on the historical record the ltc is on a different track i don't agree um if

[0:30:00] Voice 5: Local residents want to come to us with a request for a variance on a particular piece of property that includes a wall or is above the structure.

[0:30:11] Voice 5: I would like to be able to look at it one at a time until such time as our projection.

[0:30:22] Voice 5: then if we had a hypothetical application for a variance like today how does it how do we end up

[0:30:33] Voice 5: dealing with that variance

[0:30:34] Voice 4: when it turns out that there's been two previous applications

[0:30:38] Voice 4: what the LTC has done in those situations is washed its hands of the variance by denying it

[0:30:49] Voice 4: but then declining to do anything on the enforcement side and says this is something

[0:30:54] Voice 4: that needs to be examined with this project but the larger policy like the larger policy

[0:31:00] Voice 4: that would inform how you deal with the variance should be answered by this investigation i think

[0:31:06] Voice 5: the difference is when you're looking at a structure that hasn't been changed or isn't

[0:31:14] Voice 5: changed that is one way but if you're looking at a structure if somebody comes to us and says

[0:31:20] Voice 5: i would like to increase the structure i would like to do some changes to the structure get

[0:31:26] Voice 5: better for temporary property i would like to see that that that's difference here is when they're

[0:31:33] Voice 5: making changes to it or increasing it

[0:31:36] Voice 6: then that is what i want to see should we hear from them

[0:31:47] Voice 6: thank

[0:31:48] Voice 5: you so through the chair if i may um i just want to recognize that this is a special

[0:31:56] Voice 5: i want to suggest if it's can address the somewhat time of discussions needed

[0:32:03] Voice 5: rather than

[0:32:04] Voice 5: a delegation to do a business or talk about a project list at the time

[0:32:15] Voice 5: i'm going to object to that i'm sorry steph but sorry just through through the chair

[0:32:19] Voice 5: i understand

[0:32:21] Voice 4: but maybe i'll just you know for a second and continue on

[0:32:28] Voice 4: I'm just thinking, this is a, you know, thank you for bringing this delegation, or it's fascinating, actually, and it's incredibly complex. And it's not surprising that there's different points of view and understanding. And the way the Honors Trust does things is very methodical, it's a process, science, analysis, and the like.

[0:32:49] Voice 4: INDEED, TO THE STAFF'S POINT, WE HAVE A DELEGATION AND WE'VE HEARD THIS INFORMATION, THERE'S

[0:32:54] Voice 4: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CLARIFY WHAT THE DELEGATE IS TELLING US AND INDEED WE'VE DONE

[0:33:00] Voice 4: SOME OF THAT.

[0:33:01] Voice 4: I DO THINK THAT THIS IS NOT ON, IT'S NOT ON OUR PROJECTS LIST AT THE MOMENT AND I DON'T

[0:33:09] Voice 4: WANT TO TALK TOO MUCH, BUT IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE THAT IT IS ON OUR PROJECTS LIST AND

[0:33:14] Voice 4: WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND THE PROJECTS LIST ISN'T A COMMITMENT TO

[0:33:17] Voice 4: actually do anything until we say advance that one to the top of the list and now we're gonna

[0:33:23] Voice 4: cut it so the ltc is identified that that means there needs to be some work there which is not

[0:33:28] Voice 4: insignificant and um and so at some point the ltc has to decide to put that to the top of the

[0:33:35] Voice 4: priorities and act on that one and put the other ones off whatever it is that needs to be done

[0:33:39] Voice 4: um so i think that we need to receive the information um and and perhaps ask staff in

[0:33:48] Voice 4: broader terms to come back with current status of file enforcement um the project what we need

[0:33:55] Voice 4: to know and perhaps the ltc is interesting how can we adapt this quick um but it's because

[0:34:01] Voice 4: isn't that exactly what this delegation has asked for yes that that's exactly what they want yes

[0:34:08] Voice 4: Yes. The

[0:34:09] Voice 4: thing that's been left out

[0:34:09] Voice 5: here is while that's happening, they're being put through the grinder on the enforcement side.

[0:34:17] And the reason they've come

[0:34:19] Voice 5: is to ask for relief. So there's nothing to disagree with what you're suggesting and how we should resolve this.

[0:34:26] Voice 5: But the question is, the one that we've been asked, which is to offer or provide some relief to these residents pending that happen.

[0:34:35] Voice 5: That's a question we have to answer today.

[0:34:37] Voice 5: Perfect. I have some advice.

[0:34:39] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:34:41] Voice 5: In listening and reading this, I've looked at what we consider to be the standing resolution, which I'm sure by law enforcement officer Dingman is familiar with, the standing resolution.

[0:34:50] Voice 4: So it says, ostensibly it's modified as time goes by, that says something like in this particular case, we would like by law enforcement to pause on by law enforcement associated with these laws and whatever.

[0:35:03] or whatever um um and that's something that would be on the

[0:35:07] Voice 5: record that um that would direct

[0:35:10] Voice 5: by law enforcement i'm not seeing anything like that so whatever happened historically

[0:35:14] Voice 5: if there was some

[0:35:15] Voice 4: handshake decision about something that's got nothing to do with anything

[0:35:19] Voice 4: the ltc has not asked by law enforcement in the past to not enact by law enforcement

[0:35:25] Voice 4: associated with this and that's at the discretion of this committee to do that and so indeed today

[0:35:29] Voice 4: Today would certainly be something that I would suggest we ask staff to come back to

[0:35:35] Voice 4: us with a recommendation for a standing resolution to stop the escalation of law enforcement

[0:35:42] Voice 4: and some of the feelings and stuff that are going on around this in order to allow us

[0:35:47] Voice 4: to advance forward.

[0:35:48] Voice 4: But I think the other significant thing that Kate is raising here, it's sure that this

[0:35:54] Voice 5: This king tide season was enormous for lots of people everywhere.

[0:35:59] Voice 5: And indeed, your properties are like a standing target on the

[0:36:03] Voice 4: crest of the wave.

[0:36:05] Voice 4: And so what's important is that if you don't have a permit to do something like fix a damaged retaining wall, you can't fix it.

[0:36:13] Voice 4: Sorry. And so indeed, while violent enforcement is being postponed, that doesn't mean that you can keep filing.

[0:36:22] Voice 4: violating. And so that also means as a kind of a truce, you're not going to do anything else as

[0:36:27] Voice 4: well. But current violations that we're aware of, we don't know. And that's a fair thing to do to

[0:36:34] be sure that everybody's treated

[0:36:35] Voice 4: fairly. But indeed, it needs to be on standing resolutions,

[0:36:38] Voice 4: because otherwise, it's just not an agreement. When would be the appropriate time at this

[0:36:43] Voice 4: meeting to raise that or to propose that as a resolution?

[0:36:47] Voice 5: Well, normally at council, we have

[0:36:48] Voice 5: a disposition of delegations and so i would suggest that um perhaps when we get to the

[0:36:55] Voice 5: project's list or even right at this moment after we determine we've heard from the delegates we

[0:37:00] Voice 5: don't have any further questions that we could ask that but i would also like to ask staff

[0:37:03] Voice 5: for advice on that motion um to provide them the opportunity to make sure that we're doing

[0:37:09] Voice 5: the right thing um i just want to say as well it's incredibly

[0:37:12] Voice 4: complex individual properties

[0:37:15] Voice 4: can't be dealt with in isolation what we've learned through science over the last 10 or 15 years is if

[0:37:21] Voice 4: you make a seawall improvement on one property it's detrimental to the others so indeed the idea

[0:37:26] Voice 4: of a pilot project to look at the big picture is absolutely the thing that needs to happen and

[0:37:30] Voice 4: somehow that needs to get to the top of the progress well what i'm hearing with that though

[0:37:36] Voice 4: is that the relief that this delegation is asking for can't be separated from the need to actually

[0:37:42] Voice 4: give life to this project like there's no point deferring enforcement i mean what we can't do is

[0:37:50] defer the enforcement process forever which is what will happen is if if that's all we do is

[0:37:57] pass a resolution to say suspend we also need to have um a decision and perhaps a place to do it

[0:38:05] isn't the in the

[0:38:06] Voice 4: deal with the business uh you know the ongoing project list is to set terms

[0:38:11] of reference for that project and to initiate it and as you say top list but we need to have the

[0:38:18] terms like um absolutely they're not being very clear but

[0:38:21] Voice 4: whatever relief is grant needs to be

[0:38:24] Voice 4: tied to terms of reference that

[0:38:27] Voice 5: are very specific with respect to the project sorry thank you yeah

[0:38:31] Voice 5: but you know i don't want to get involved in the debate parts because they're selecting

[0:38:35] Voice 5: to go out with the business sources would be the right thing, but this is not a new

[0:38:40] Voice 4: problem, and so we have to figure out how we're going to do that, and that has to happen

[0:38:45] Voice 4: with the projects list and balancing OCPs versus this inventory crisis.

[0:38:52] Voice 5: Kate?

[0:38:52] Voice 5: Through the chair.

[0:38:54] Voice 5: I would like to hear a clarification from the delegation.

[0:39:00] Voice 5: My focus is looking at encouraging people to come to the local trust community prior to doing any work on any wall at any time.

[0:39:14] Voice 5: And that we can then support their particular concern while we are then working on the terms of reference, working on getting this project done.

[0:39:24] Voice 5: I recognize it's very complex and it is important, but I also don't want to feel that this is a free-for-all and by suspending any bylaw fractions that people then start just building all their walls up to let such time as we can get to the project.

[0:39:41] Voice 5: So that is my hope.

[0:39:42] Voice 5: So I would like to be able to bring this to our priorities report later on, but give that kind of perspective.

[0:39:49] Voice 5: So we just had a question.

[0:39:51] Voice 5: I was just going to say that and that to me makes a lot of sense in terms of um going through a

[0:39:57] Voice 5: channel that the official channel of the honest trust the one thing that I would say the caveat

[0:40:02] Voice 5: is that when the king tide event happened in December and January and just over a year ago

[0:40:06] Voice 5: some properties were left extremely vulnerable and so any future we were very fortunate there

[0:40:12] Voice 5: wasn't a secondary and subsequent king tide event that that then battered our offshore and and we

[0:40:19] Voice 5: we saw the Stanley Park seawall was left in a very similar situation and that was very quickly

[0:40:24] Voice 5: addressed by construction and so the only concern that I would have is that as somebody

[0:40:32] Voice 5: whose property was affected by that and not what he was vulnerable but there is obviously a time

[0:40:37] Voice 5: frame between the event happening and getting approval or variance and what is your recommendation

[0:40:44] Voice 5: for trying to protect

[0:40:46] Voice 5: health and well-being.

[0:40:48] Voice 5: So, through the chair, I would like

[0:40:51] Voice 5: to have this discussion at

[0:40:53] Voice 5: our projects list point

[0:40:55] Voice 5: and have a note that

[0:40:57] Voice 5: this has all been reported

[0:40:58] Voice 5: that this is part of that

[0:41:01] Voice 5: discussion, is how we

[0:41:02] Voice 5: do make that

[0:41:04] Voice 5: allowance, recognizing

[0:41:06] Voice 5: that that's a very dynamic area.

[0:41:11] Voice 5: I'd like to say, if I may,

[0:41:13] Voice 5: I'd like to propose that the delegation

[0:41:20] Voice 5: I would not be comfortable with that right now.

[0:41:25] Voice 5: I'd like to have my discussion in terms of what the other projects are, but I feel that

[0:41:31] Voice 5: we need to talk about concerns.

[0:41:35] Voice 5: I would like to have those concerns considered when we do projects.

[0:41:40] Voice 5: Yeah, I think if there's some factual content associated with the delegation, I mean, some

[0:41:45] Voice 5: some clarity on, maybe not

[0:41:47] Voice 5: reasonable, but we've heard

[0:41:49] Voice 5: from the delegation, and that's really

[0:41:51] Voice 5: well summarized, I think.

[0:41:56] Voice 4: Would it be better

[0:41:57] Voice 4: to frame it that, invite

[0:42:00] Voice 4: them to hang around so that they're

[0:42:01] Voice 4: available to answer any questions that we might have

[0:42:04] Voice 4: in the course of that discussion? Would that be

[0:42:05] Voice 4: acceptable?

[0:42:08] Voice 5: Well,

[0:42:14] Voice 5: I get the

[0:42:16] Voice 1: feeling

[0:42:16] Voice 5: that... And I'll just

[0:42:18] Voice 5: I'll just make a point about that is that quite a few boundaries such as pointers have probably

[0:42:25] Voice 5: there or since the 1950s so do have a lot of historical information on it so I do think that

[0:42:35] Voice 5: that would probably be able to have an application sure well we definitely need anecdotal local

[0:42:43] Voice 5: knowledge how many sites can I'll ask this you need that actually is more to the point in order

[0:42:51] Voice 5: to determine what if any to be honest solution is available to remediate whatever's going on there

[0:43:00] Voice 5: um so i just

[0:43:02] Voice 4: want to sort of advance us through this because we do have to be conscious of time

[0:43:07] Voice 4: um it does strike me that if there's a necessity for uh holding off on file enforcement we should

[0:43:14] Voice 5: ask staff for a recommendation regarding uh a standing resolution so i'd like to ask that just

[0:43:20] Voice 5: officially um do you think that that's an avenue forward here or do you have a different perspective

[0:43:27] Voice 5: on the boots on the ground so to speak with respect to this chair it's more than appropriate

[0:43:32] Voice 5: to have a standing resolution but i would recommend that it be specific to the seawall

[0:43:37] yes only yes and it should all the wording should also state that uh this standing resolution

[0:43:43] not deferred enforcement on the seawall

[0:43:45] Voice 5: should not be interpreted as permitting any right work

[0:43:50] Voice 5: So you've said more or less exactly

[0:43:52] Voice 4: what I wanted from you as a recommendation, so that

[0:43:56] Voice 4: we can endorse that.

[0:43:57] Voice 4: And I think

[0:43:58] Voice 5: that if you provided that

[0:43:58] Voice 4: information to us

[0:44:00] Voice 4: in the way

[0:44:00] Voice 5: of a motion, it's quite likely

[0:44:02] you can do that by RWF in order to be sure

[0:44:05] Voice 5: that that is in place to give certainty to

[0:44:08] Voice 5: the

[0:44:08] Voice 4: folks on the island.

[0:44:10] Voice 4: Does that sound like a reasonable approach here?

[0:44:13] Voice 4: So then what we should do then is have a motion and you can wing it.

[0:44:17] Voice 4: we love winning motions that we asked by the enforcement staff to bring forward a motion for

[0:44:23] a standing resolution um regarding um let's just

[0:44:26] Voice 5: call it the island waterfront uh structures and

[0:44:30] Voice 5: you've captured the essence of it hey chair just while we're doing that there would be no further

[0:44:36] Voice 5: against the seawall but it went well it may not happen until the next meeting even there's a

[0:44:41] Voice 5: time frame here before the most adopted so uh just let the delegates know that there'd be no

[0:44:46] Voice 5: of course we're going to see what's going to be considered okay yeah i may that also

[0:44:54] Voice 5: it's very reasonable and practical but um like i mentioned before though it

[0:45:00] Voice 4: has to be linked to

[0:45:01] Voice 5: getting light in this project well we're going to talk about that later right because you're

[0:45:05] Voice 5: absolutely right yeah yeah so you proposed a motion which sounded really good and i hope

[0:45:11] Voice 5: somebody captured it somewhere through the chair yeah catherine did you manage to

[0:45:17] Voice 5: capture any

[0:45:19] Voice 4: of that and i'm happy to make the motions um

[0:45:22] Voice 3: what i'm capturing is that the ltc

[0:45:27] Voice 3: wants um wants to request that bylaw enforcement um craft a motion

[0:45:36] Voice 3: regarding the seawall and then once that motion and then that crafted motion will come back for

[0:45:43] Voice 3: for the next item or starting

[0:45:45] Voice 4: from the beginning Catherine and I'm going to move that the

[0:45:50] Voice 4: Gambria Island local trust committee requests staff

[0:45:54] Voice 6: to bring a motion to the LTC

[0:45:59] Voice 6: for

[0:46:01] Voice 4: a standing resolution to what's the word sister defer

[0:46:07] Voice 6: bylaw enforcement on the Thornby

[0:46:13] Voice 6: island shoreline protection issues i think that will capture it and then they're going to bring

[0:46:27] Voice 6: us a motion that we can then endorse

[0:46:30] Voice 4: and well i'm all for the motion but it seems a little vague

[0:46:35] Voice 4: to see that but you know it doesn't address uh uh

[0:46:40] Voice 5: mr dingman's i think precise and accurate

[0:46:46] Voice 5: observation that the motion should be very directed towards pausing

[0:46:54] enforcement of those matters that were the subject of this delegation and

[0:46:59] Voice 5: nothing else and it doesn't end to address the other concerns that were

[0:47:04] Voice 5: expressed here that it doesn't offer any kind of unity for future infractions or

[0:47:12] questions with respect to those types of remediations uh and that if there is a need

[0:47:19] while this thing is on

[0:47:20] Voice 4: pause if there's a need for further remediation or something happening

[0:47:24] Voice 4: sea walls is that the right thing to do is to bring that forward by way of a variance application

[0:47:31] Voice 4: you know so we want to be very you

[0:47:33] Voice 4: know i think it was fair enough for mr green by statement he

[0:47:36] Voice 4: said this should be very precise you know

[0:47:38] Voice 5: and i don't i don't think anybody

[0:47:40] Voice 5: here disagrees nor

[0:47:41] Voice 5: I don't see that. I see it's people in the delegation

[0:47:42] Voice 5: nodding their heads.

[0:47:43] Voice 5: And so the motion that I just proposed

[0:47:47] Voice 5: is to ask Warren

[0:47:48] Voice 5: to do exactly that. Okay. Thank you.

[0:47:51] Voice 5: And that will

[0:47:51] Voice 4: be as precise

[0:47:53] Voice 4: as it gets because Warren is

[0:47:55] Voice 4: going to cover us on this to make sure

[0:47:57] Voice 4: that it's what we expect. And indeed

[0:47:58] Voice 4: there will be some

[0:48:01] Voice 5: requirements for

[0:48:02] Voice 5: property owners to respect that.

[0:48:06] Voice 5: Can I ask you a question?

[0:48:07] Voice 5: Can we just second that?

[0:48:09] Voice 5: Yeah,

[0:48:10] Voice 7: I think we need to deal with

[0:48:11] Voice 5: the motion to try and second that.

[0:48:14] Voice 5: Okay, so any further discussion? All those in favor? That carries. Okay, so that's great.

[0:48:21] So we're going to take some action on the vital enforcement, and later on in the meeting,

[0:48:25] we're going to talk about

[0:48:25] Voice 5: the project and how that might embrace the concerns you brought to us today.

[0:48:31] Voice 5: So you have something else?

[0:48:32] Voice 5: I'd like to very quickly request that the owners that have received communication from the enforcement branch

[0:48:38] Voice 5: relative to these seawall structures it then be communicated to them once the motion has been

[0:48:44] Voice 5: created that it's sort of the pause is happening and to reinforce the fact that um nothing further

[0:48:50] Voice 5: can happen in the floor like all of what i just said but to communicate that in written format

[0:48:55] Voice 5: so do you do that normally um it would obviously be very public at this point

[0:49:00] Voice 5: yes for the most part yes we can do that it's just not usually this slurred

[0:49:08] Voice 5: i could uh express a clarity as i understand what would be that nothing further can be done

[0:49:15] Voice 5: in respect to these sea walls without variance correct so those variance applications can be

[0:49:20] Voice 5: brought uh and only granted can further modifications to existing sea walls away

[0:49:28] Voice 5: if there is an order on that that wall call the planners first thing just call the planners

[0:49:34] Voice 5: And, of course, you need to get ministry environment, fisheries, and oceans, and all those folks need to be in on this.

[0:49:42] Voice 5: And, you know,

[0:49:45] Voice 4: everybody in the room will get used to it eventually.

[0:49:49] Voice 4: Just to be trained, bringing a single variation permit may or may not be successful.

[0:49:55] Voice 4: Coming with a bigger, broader project for all

[0:49:59] Voice 5: of the properties might be more successful.

[0:50:01] Voice 5: That's wonderful.

[0:50:02] Voice 5: Just keep that in mind.

[0:50:04] Voice 5: it seems to me that time to do something like that would be after the pilot project has run its course

[0:50:10] Voice 5: the relevant values and considerations and science yeah and there's another king tide

[0:50:20] Voice 5: in december next year and there can hopefully be some kind of consensus

[0:50:25] Voice 5: So it's too much to work with as we go further down the agenda.

[0:50:32] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:50:33] Voice 5: So thank you for the delegation today.

[0:50:34] Voice 5: We have this particular chapter.

[0:50:37] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:50:38] Voice 5: Thank you very much.

[0:50:40] Voice 5: So now we open up the floor to public comment.

[0:50:43] Voice 5: Generally, you see this one of the person in the back row.

[0:50:47] There are people in the back row.

[0:50:49] Is there any anything that other folks in the audience

[0:50:53] would like to just speak to the ltc about okay

[0:50:56] Voice 5: thank you thank you

[0:51:02] Voice 5: you can follow the recording later

[0:51:06] Voice 5: so go ahead okay thank you your name please my name is peter i am a property owner on

[0:51:15] Voice 5: what if i'm a property owner okay so that was great just a little reminder to be respectful

[0:51:20] Voice 5: echo of staff and trustees and the audience watching us at home and and use your language

[0:51:24] Voice 5: appropriately and so over to you sir i'd like to say um first time i've met somebody i've met you

[0:51:31] Voice 5: before but i haven't met you and pleased to be in service when i'm clear about and

[0:51:35] Voice 5: and i would like to address the issue that's on your agenda later and that is the

[0:51:42] Voice 5: We also encourage the youth.

[0:51:45] Voice 5: And I'd like to address it from two perspectives.

[0:51:49] Voice 5: Firstly, from the perspective of, again,

[0:51:52] Voice 5: the other Conservatives with which I am present.

[0:51:55] Voice 5: I'd like to talk about two questions.

[0:51:57] Voice 5: And secondly, my own views.

[0:52:00] Voice 5: The Conservatives have not yet had a chance

[0:52:02] Voice 5: to look at the report, but I'd like to say a few.

[0:52:05] Voice 5: Your good opinion might be more than important.

[0:52:09] Voice 5: So first of all, starting off with the questions,

[0:52:11] Voice 5: I think you have all seen the correspondence that was sent to Trustee Stamford and also I think to

[0:52:19] Voice 5: the planning staff expressing the Conservancy's concerns. And that's been articulated to all of

[0:52:26] Voice 5: us. So those have been completely revealed. I've spent a lot of time on them, but I just have the

[0:52:34] Voice 5: questions here in front of me. And I'm not sure if you've got them, but question one and two are

[0:52:38] Voice 5: no problem big issue i guess for us was question three which uh talked about the permitting

[0:52:45] Voice 5: basically logging on the designated forest areas and it seemed like the way the question

[0:52:52] Voice 5: worded it wasn't specified specifically that the deficit didn't recognize that there is in fact

[0:53:00] Voice 5: for the activity designated in the wilderness conservation zone which is the largest one

[0:53:05] Voice 5: to be consumed i'm currently thinking but he's talking about 60 percent there is permitted

[0:53:12] Voice 5: logging activity and that's that is a designated use and so the question didn't recognize the fact

[0:53:17] Voice 5: that we'll still use the president it's probably the biggest conservative point is the most

[0:53:26] Voice 5: important uh so and yeah you'd like to see that so that was a that was a big issue and the other

[0:53:34] Voice 5: The other one was

[0:53:35] Voice 6: the question of the

[0:53:40] Voice 6: very happy with 4 and 5,

[0:53:47] Voice 6: question 6

[0:53:48] Voice 5: would be another concern we have

[0:53:50] Voice 5: is about protecting the shoreline. And there was a question

[0:53:55] Voice 5: there seemed to be some good questions about whether people were

[0:53:59] Voice 5: interested in doing that, question 4 and 5.

[0:54:04] Voice 5: And question 6 asked would you be supportive of

[0:54:07] Voice 5: expanding the setbacks to 30 meters now this pricing was a bit of a problem because i didn't

[0:54:13] Voice 5: talk about um what the setback you're talking about which is actually existing in the existing

[0:54:18] Voice 5: file on that is the um the discussion on building building structures

[0:54:26] Voice 5: that wasn't very clear in this so the uh so instead of arguing was that they should have

[0:54:37] instead of jumping into a 30-meter setback to a region that should have been considered

[0:54:44] existing,

[0:54:44] Voice 5: which is a 50-meter setback, restricting buildings and structures to concentrate in that

[0:54:50] Voice 5: area and bring in these areas of protecting the natural environment, renewable trees, etc.

[0:54:55] Voice 5: Those are the two main questions. The other one was kind of a funny question.

[0:55:00] Voice 5: Question number eight, do you consider it to be more important on game ground protection of

[0:55:05] Voice 5: groundland or biodiversity or recreation. That was kind of a strange question to

[0:55:12] Voice 5: be able to find what recreation was. From the Conservancy's perspective, or any Coast Islanders, recreation is

[0:55:18] Voice 5: is using the trails. Using the trail system is actually a conservation benefit because

[0:55:27] Voice 5: if you have a trail system, well more trail systems and people can walk around the island

[0:55:31] Voice 5: stay on the trails from the exterior of the environment and a good form of recreation

[0:55:36] Voice 5: but remember treasurer said the busy land that was again with this festival kind of recreation

[0:55:41] Voice 5: so what was i really concerned about the uh questions i think i

[0:55:47] Voice 5: have documentation that you have it's been done by what our citizens are doing i would like to

[0:55:53] Voice 5: get into the a little bit into the report and so i have some i have that i read through the

[0:56:00] Voice 5: whole report. I just started standard key. I've got to suggest

[0:56:04] Voice 5: one page page. I'm sure you've got plenty. This is just page

[0:56:09] Voice 5: six of the report, the recommendations and about the

[0:56:12] Voice 5: recommendations emanating from the survey results, which we

[0:56:16] Voice 5: feel some of the questions are actually flawed and facing

[0:56:20] Voice 5: recommendations on those flaws. So one of the areas in this

[0:56:26] Voice 5: recommendation this is on page 36. boardman actually repeats that question about uh

[0:56:34] Voice 5: continuing to continue to work with the province to review options to could allow community forest

[0:56:39] Voice 5: and put out licensing on fran land designated as forest so we have the same reiteration of

[0:56:47] Voice 5: questions the question that we've called this thought now shows up as a recommendation so we're

[0:56:52] Voice 5: happy the best. In this particular page here, there are six or eight paragraphs,

[0:57:00] eight paragraphs, and I have noticed that four of them, four of those eight, seem to somehow

[0:57:07] Voice 5: suggest that there should be more volume. I don't know why, but he hasn't seen this,

[0:57:14] Voice 5: but when he did the actual questions, he said, it looks to me like there's a bias in this report,

[0:57:21] Voice 5: important, but in these questions, the survey works more of all, I think I, I think that's

[0:57:26] Voice 5: essentially it.

[0:57:27] Voice 5: Well, sir, I think that it's highly unlikely

[0:57:29] Voice 4: there's a bias and that we craft questions

[0:57:32] Voice 4: according to what we think are things that we want to know without bias and, and so we

[0:57:39] Voice 4: anticipate a response as soon as

[0:57:42] Voice 5: surveys come to the cell, ideally in a written form, it's

[0:57:46] Voice 5: hard for us to follow some of their details there but

[0:57:49] Voice 4: just ask you to be uh bring the issues that

[0:57:53] Voice 4: you want to raise to us and if you're concerned about no more logging on gambria that's great

[0:57:57] Voice 5: and i think there's certainly a lot of interest in in protecting the trees on the camp oh yeah

[0:58:02] Voice 5: yes actually i was going to point out again on this debate items i think if i could hear a red

[0:58:09] Voice 5: I put in my comments, and I put in three excellent comments on three of those paragraphs, and

[0:58:17] Voice 5: one had to do with the strong language for the protection of the island, that was great.

[0:58:23] Voice 5: Strengthening engagement with the federal governments in this Squamish nation, they

[0:58:27] Voice 5: should have been in there.

[0:58:29] Voice 5: And the other excellent one was an inventory, establishing an inventory of old growth forests.

[0:58:35] Voice 5: she told about those very good recommendations again this is fine so uh peter

[0:58:42] Voice 6: um could you

[0:58:48] Voice 6: send us those annotations again

[0:58:51] Voice 5: i've been sorry

[0:58:56] Voice 5: okay so i think that would be very helpful and i will make sure that they are part of the

[0:59:01] Voice 5: correspondence from the uscp because you're bringing up a real lot of really good points but

[0:59:06] Voice 5: but we usually keep our delegations to about five minutes

[0:59:10] Voice 5: and our town hall speaking to about five minutes.

[0:59:17] Voice 5: So I certainly have heard the concerns the Conservancy's had,

[0:59:21] Voice 5: and you're certainly not the only group

[0:59:24] Voice 5: that has expressed concern about how the survey is read.

[0:59:27] Voice 5: But we will be talking further about the OCP,

[0:59:30] Voice 5: and I will make sure that certainly your annotations

[0:59:35] Voice 5: and anything that the

[0:59:37] Voice 5: Conservancy brings forward, we'll make sure

[0:59:39] Voice 5: it is in the record as

[0:59:41] we look forward to this year.

[0:59:42] I have just one more question.

[0:59:45] This is a great

[0:59:46] area to talk about.

[0:59:47] These plans

[0:59:52] Voice 5: are outdated.

[0:59:54] Voice 5: There's been a new approach

[0:59:56] Voice 5: on the

[0:59:57] Voice 5: overall strategic review.

[1:00:00] Voice 5: and there's been a panel established and in my working i've changed that around to appear to miss some of these ideas recommendations and i hope it's proven rather

[1:00:12] Voice 5: than talking about all the secret kind of what they did anyways that's i'd have to use a camera right give you a copy here i'll

[1:00:19] Voice 5: a certain extent of quality that's okay and i'll make sure

[1:00:22] Voice 1: they all get it

[1:00:23] Voice 5: thank you every other

[1:00:24] Voice 5: person a good service hopefully to get to this item because we ended up service myself and those

[1:00:30] Voice 5: are some of the things we wanted

[1:00:32] Voice 6: they've

[1:00:35] Voice 5: just been promoting that i was quite pleased with the

[1:00:38] Voice 5: one i was very nice to present it i like the questions were put there and then

[1:00:44] Voice 5: and so on. So it's really quite well done. So I appreciate it. Thanks very much for all you've done.

[1:00:52] Voice 6: So thank you very

[1:00:53] Voice 5: much. And you should know that with regards to OCP development, they go before

[1:00:57] Voice 5: the minister for approval. And other ministries are consulting, and certainly any new legislation

[1:01:04] Voice 5: that's in place or up to date can be considered in the review process. So thank you for coming

[1:01:09] Voice 5: today. And Roger's past trustee, welcome back to the meeting. Thank you very much. I guess I'm in

[1:01:15] Voice 5: that's still in that transition having completely left you you may see me again because i uh sir uh

[1:01:22] Voice 5: nice to see you of course i haven't seen you since you were a chair and congratulations

[1:01:29] Voice 5: trustee bernardo know too much about trustee stanford

[1:01:34] Voice 5: nice to see you marlis and i don't know you i'm sorry you're lydia rpm i'm renee jeffrey

[1:01:41] Voice 5: I just want a few things by my time, but you will see me again because I'm now a director

[1:01:49] Voice 5: with the Biosphere, and I expect I'll come and be the liaison here from that group, so

[1:01:57] Voice 5: I'm curious.

[1:01:58] Voice 5: Well, congratulations on that.

[1:02:00] Voice 5: Yeah, well, congratulations is the right word.

[1:02:03] Voice 5: It's about as much work as this.

[1:02:07] I just want to touch on briefly a couple of things. First of all, if I might, for a moment,

[1:02:13] just push back on a bit of a narrative regarding foreign and not that I disagree with the approach

[1:02:22] that you're taking, but if I could just push back about that, because there was some implication

[1:02:26] that the last two LPCs were somehow negligent in relation to what was called the pilot project.

[1:02:32] from the ground uh i think you need to recognize that one uh and i'm thrilled that there's interest

[1:02:38] on the island now

[1:02:39] Voice 5: with that project because there was zero uh income from the island in that project

[1:02:45] Voice 5: and for as long as the city on our project was we heard nothing from them related to it uh i do

[1:02:52] Voice 5: consider the workshop we did up there as part of that project i was a trustee at the time and i

[1:02:57] Voice 5: traveled there to do it to be part of it and uh it was an education session in relation to trying to

[1:03:04] encourage the island i'm interested

[1:03:07] Voice 5: in shores and alternative ways to protecting their foreshore

[1:03:11] simply the

[1:03:12] Voice 5: hardship approach they've been taking so uh and then we heard nothing but the second

[1:03:16] Voice 5: part of this is is the discussion you're about to have which is what are you going to prioritize

[1:03:22] Voice 5: I know that Trustee Barrado is now chair of the Financial Funding Committee.

[1:03:28] All of these projects take funds, and that would be a substantial fund in terms of .

[1:03:36] This LTT has been specifically under-resourced,

[1:03:42] Voice 5: mostly because of staff turnover related,

[1:03:45] Voice 5: and there's a reason why the Gambier OCP is 8.0 in England, why the Keats foreshore has

[1:03:52] Voice 5: in five years to get to the stage it's at right now without another major project at the stage

[1:03:57] i totally

[1:03:58] Voice 5: encourage it i think it's a really important thing to do i hope i wish you luck

[1:04:03] Voice 5: in finding priorities and the capacity it's an incredibly important and and yes incredibly

[1:04:10] different uh ecosystem uh than any of the others that we deal with and i hope you'll find a way to

[1:04:18] protect it and the park that's next door to board. I will tell you that efforts to try and assist in

[1:04:24] Voice 5: the protection of that park were resisted by the community. But if they're interested, that's great.

[1:04:30] Voice 5: I'm really thrilled. So good luck. I will say that I will encourage this as you do have that same

[1:04:37] Voice 5: debate to complete and continue the projects that are on the foreshore. I appreciate that there

[1:04:44] Voice 5: needs to be able to learn for uh and some work to be done with uh trustee bernardo related to

[1:04:50] Voice 5: the keeps project and that there's a desire for some more community engagement but i as i wrote

[1:04:55] Voice 5: to you i really encourage you to continue that project it's important uh and important um and

[1:05:01] Voice 5: then lastly i guess i wanted to say is i'm not sure why the movie mou is on your on your agenda

[1:05:08] Voice 5: today, but it is since the memorandum of understanding is there on your agenda. I expect

[1:05:14] Voice 5: probably Trustee Stamford wants to talk about it. If you're going to have some communications with

[1:05:20] Voice 5: the ministry regarding the island road standards, please include Pete's in that. We have real

[1:05:27] problems again, and we

[1:05:30] Voice 5: often get left out of those discussions, and I'm happy to facilitate.

[1:05:34] Voice 5: thing and maybe the last thing i'll say is uh i will uh offer to you that i have refurbished

[1:05:41] Voice 5: and repurposed my contact list for the for the local trust area uh it is ready to go again and

[1:05:47] Voice 5: i'm happy to assist the uh the lcc and the island's trust in communication to uh communities throughout

[1:05:53] Voice 5: the islands not just keats and gambier but also to the thorn mill bees and to the trail islands

[1:05:59] Voice 5: and the Paisleys and the Antles and the various islands.

[1:06:03] Voice 5: I repurposed that, and I now have it set on the training.

[1:06:07] Voice 5: And I'm happy to continue to do that.

[1:06:10] Voice 5: So those are my comments.

[1:06:12] Oh, just one last thing.

[1:06:13] As you were going through the conversations related to the farming meat,

[1:06:17] again, we're talking about the involvement

[1:06:20] Voice 5: of fisheries, et cetera.

[1:06:21] Voice 5: The Seashell Nation is very involved in that area.

[1:06:25] Voice 5: It's part of their – and there's, in fact, we haven't been involved,

[1:06:28] Voice 5: and i wish the ldc had become more involved uh they're doing a whole study around i think they

[1:06:34] Voice 5: call it their you know i got that light and i apologize if i if i got the name wrong at the

[1:06:40] Voice 5: wa i believe that's right which they consider their area and they're doing a whole uh governance

[1:06:46] review with the province related back and it includes the foreign gas they're quite keen on

[1:06:51] those um

[1:06:51] Voice 5: uh as part of their commission territory so they'll involve engagement with the station

[1:06:58] Voice 5: Thank you very much, and good luck in your deliberations, particularly around what your parents.

[1:07:03] Voice 5: Thank you, sir. I know we've got some correspondence with you later.

[1:07:08] Voice 5: So, does anybody else wish to address the local trust committee today?

[1:07:14] Voice 5: Okay, then we're going to move along.

[1:07:16] Voice 4: So, we've got to the minutes section here.

[1:07:18] Voice 4: Unfortunately, most of the work has been done by resolution without meeting report, which I mentioned earlier.

[1:07:26] Voice 4: And so, there are no minutes to receive at this time.

[1:07:28] Voice 4: sure we'll just continue through that

[1:07:30] Voice 5: unless there's any questions uh just on 7.3 the advisory

[1:07:34] Voice 5: planning commission minutes it's just a point of clarification for the new trust here well we don't

[1:07:39] Voice 5: usually have uh apc for this local trust community yeah yeah we will bring up specific programs where

[1:07:48] Voice 5: we then look to be developing it or being an apc or a country or specifically the reason i do that

[1:07:57] Voice 5: It's because we are such a widespread community and representing different islands with the

[1:08:08] Voice 5: requirement that a GPC pass for residence status.

[1:08:12] Voice 5: It makes

[1:08:13] Voice 5: it very difficult to accommodate the legalities around advisory planning.

[1:08:18] Voice 5: We may see them, but we don't have standing.

[1:08:21] Voice 5: So it's just flames.

[1:08:22] Voice 5: So we set them up by special, in this, in our local trust area, it's more feasible to set up a special purpose advisory committee or a working group per project.

[1:08:34] Voice 5: But it's not that we can't, it's just in practice we have a need.

[1:08:38] Voice 5: right understand okay so thank you very much so i'll continue along then

[1:08:43] Voice 4: uh business arising from

[1:08:44] uh the minutes is um typically the follow-up action list the activities that we directed staff

[1:08:50] undertake between uh historically that's been typically since the last meeting and um that

[1:08:58] list is for you in the package and i'll just ask the staff to

[1:09:01] Voice 5: send these updates to that

[1:09:02] Voice 5: Otherwise, if there's any questions for staff on the follow-up questions,

[1:09:07] Voice 5: okay, we'll just end.

[1:09:08] Voice 5: Through the chair, how are we doing regarding that data project

[1:09:13] Voice 5: for sewer provides?

[1:09:15] Voice 5: It says in progress.

[1:09:17] Voice 5: I'm just wondering, like, is there any estimated time

[1:09:20] Voice 5: where we can start seeing it?

[1:09:23] Voice 5: No.

[1:09:24] Voice 5: I guess it might be helpful to get clarification

[1:09:28] Voice 5: on exactly what the LTP was looking for with that.

[1:09:34] Voice 5: are you looking for that report or it was in response to uh the concerns by uh community

[1:09:46] Voice 5: members on pete's on what the what the impact actually would be percy level rise to look at

[1:09:56] Voice 5: the science of it there is pretty broad provincial data on that we were asked to and with respect to

[1:10:10] Voice 5: to how the projected sea level rise

[1:10:13] Voice 5: provincially it's been calculated

[1:10:14] Voice 5: would specifically apply to Keats Island.

[1:10:17] Voice 5: And I would anticipate it's not,

[1:10:21] Voice 5: it's not to compare the measurement of the sea level rise

[1:10:26] Voice 5: in Keats Island versus anywhere else,

[1:10:27] Voice 5: but the effect of it on Keats Island, is that fair?

[1:10:31] Voice 5: Yeah, it's more specific to Keats

[1:10:33] Voice 5: was what the concern was.

[1:10:36] Voice 5: Yeah, so I think what we're looking at,

[1:10:38] Voice 5: correct me if I'm wrong, people were here before,

[1:10:41] Voice 5: but certainly knowing what the concerns of

[1:10:46] Voice 4: people on each island or just East

[1:10:47] Voice 4: Danford certainly resonates which is that the residence area I know have a

[1:10:55] Voice 4: keen interest in the foreshore project and in particular

[1:10:58] Voice 5: want to understand the

[1:11:00] Voice 5: science behind it and the science are concerned about here is not the fact

[1:11:07] Voice 5: that sea level is going to rise which is kind of a universal science project that

[1:11:12] Voice 5: overall involved him, but how that's going to affect

[1:11:14] Voice 6: that specific shoreline, because that's

[1:11:21] Voice 6: really the rationale of the offshore project. Okay, now I see Trustee Sanford shaking her head.

[1:11:28] Voice 4: Just to be clear, I was articulating the perspective, as I understand it, from

[1:11:32] Voice 4: Keats Island residents as they are now. Trustee Sanford's not going to correct me as to what the

[1:11:36] Voice 4: LTC had in mind, what it specified this thing.

[1:11:40] Voice 5: Well, just so that it's clear, when we talk about

[1:11:43] Voice 5: concerns around sea level rise. That was one part of the channel we were acting around the port door, the 7.5 meter.

[1:11:57] Voice 5: But I think that has become the focus of sea level rise, whereas there's many reasons why the recommendation is being proposed.

[1:12:07] Voice 5: It's not just, so I think that's the part that I want to clear for you about, but in terms of this request, it was specifically how this little guy's impact on the island, and it was in reference to some work that was being done in West Vancouver and their foreshore projects.

[1:12:34] Voice 5: So that's all I remember. But I'm interested because I'm not sure.

[1:12:43] Voice 5: Yeah, I think that, I mean, I can bring back some of this broad provincial data, but I don't have the capacity to really predict what the C-level rise will be in our district islands, so I just don't know how valuable it is.

[1:12:59] Voice 5: Yeah, you and your individuals in the community can go

[1:13:02] Voice 4: to the provincial database and see a beautiful map to show you where the C-level is going to be in 2050.

[1:13:07] Voice 4: Yeah, I

[1:13:08] Voice 5: mean, but that's where I kind of was getting impacts are hard to like, let's either deal with that, like have that brought back to the, to the LTC saying, here's the songs, here's what we need to know, if the community, if it's not feasible to identify specific impacts in

[1:13:29] Voice 5: for whatever reason, whether it's staff capacity or science is too large or whatever, it's

[1:13:35] Voice 5: helpful for the residents to know that.

[1:13:38] Voice 5: To know that the rationale or partial rationale behind the foreshore project is this generic

[1:13:48] Voice 5: observation that the sea level is going to rise and you've got provincial data, and by

[1:13:54] Voice 5: all means, I think it makes sense to bring that forward and say, this is as good as we've

[1:13:58] Voice 5: got.

[1:13:58] Voice 5: We can't go beyond that. We don't have the capacity to give you any specific information with respect to Inman.

[1:14:06] Voice 5: Then it's open to residents of Keech Island to say, okay, this foreshore project is being promoted on the basis of general science that applies to house sounds, not anything that's specific to us.

[1:14:20] Voice 5: For some people, that might be good enough. For others, it probably won't be good enough.

[1:14:25] Voice 5: but at least they know uh where we stand with respect to science or what science is available

[1:14:31] Voice 5: for us and then that can go into the mix of how they want to deal with these things

[1:14:35] Voice 5: so the fact that the specific thing that people are asking for isn't

[1:14:41] Voice 4: likely to be available

[1:14:43] Voice 4: the fact that you can say that is a data point that's useful to people so by all means your

[1:14:50] Voice 4: report can be as short

[1:14:51] Voice 6: as you want and then i have another question

[1:14:59] Voice 5: about the follow-up action report

[1:15:01] Voice 5: before we go off of this one i i can't honestly i wonder why this is even on a public sector

[1:15:09] Voice 5: because it could easily

[1:15:11] Voice 4: be part of an open field if climate change data on two other

[1:15:14] Voice 4: I suspect, what

[1:15:16] Voice 5: are? Different islands, different programs.

[1:15:18] Voice 5: Ah, associated islands, right, okay. No, Keynes Island, we have. Keynes Island, okay.

[1:15:23] Voice 5: I know it's her photograph, we have three OCPs in the Ganyard Beaks

[1:15:30] Voice 5: area, and that will maybe be a discussion. I got it, that's another conversation, okay.

[1:15:35] Voice 4: But it could also be less general in nature, of course, it could also be part of the tour.

[1:15:43] Voice 4: Yeah,

[1:15:43] Voice 5: so

[1:15:44] Voice 4: I would suggest that staff need clarity on what this is and we need clarity on that to provide that clarity.

[1:15:51] Voice 4: And if you want to see the provincial sea level rise mapping data, I think that probably that would be easy to deliver to us as a link or something.

[1:16:00] Voice 4: But a PDF

[1:16:01] Voice 5: would be a lovely thing to do.

[1:16:02] So is that what we're up to?

[1:16:04] I didn't make

[1:16:05] Voice 5: the request, but I just want to find me to get that.

[1:16:09] Voice 5: How long has it been on this list?

[1:16:10] Done.

[1:16:10] And Mr.

[1:16:14] Chair, if I could ask just for that staff question of clarification, my impression based

[1:16:21] on past knowledge, but I actually don't know if this would have been the type of question

[1:16:26] that would have emerged from some, either from correspondence coming from the public

[1:16:32] Voice 5: or community information meetings or something like that.

[1:16:36] Voice 5: And the reason the LTC is asking for it is because the public says for it.

[1:16:41] Voice 5: and public's entitled to a definitive answer i don't

[1:16:47] Voice 6: think it has

[1:16:47] Voice 5: to be complex it's just

[1:16:49] Voice 5: yes it can be a very simple answer as we've discussed okay do you need any

[1:16:54] Voice 5: so then and the minutes of course are the recorded minutes

[1:17:01] Voice 5: so back to you for the uh on uh item four um request staff for the uh contact prevention

[1:17:09] Voice 5: and government party stakeholders for Shusha Elk Nation.

[1:17:14] Voice 5: I guess I'm asking for an explanation

[1:17:17] Voice 5: or see where the progress is, but more broadly,

[1:17:21] Voice 5: I know that there is a lot happening.

[1:17:25] Voice 5: We've talked about the SUA,

[1:17:26] Voice 5: we're talking about foundational relationships

[1:17:31] Voice 5: with various governments that connect with Shusha Elk Nation.

[1:17:36] Voice 5: So, um, I would like to acknowledge that that might be more, there'll be more activity in

[1:17:46] Voice 5: that area in this chat, um, and that I can also provide more links, more information

[1:17:53] Voice 5: potentially, being my role as subject and director, because I deal a lot more with She-Shell

[1:17:58] Voice 5: now than I did.

[1:18:00] Voice 5: So I don't know if there's been any progress

[1:18:02] Voice 6: in that field, and don't believe me.

[1:18:08] Voice 6: So that's something I could follow up and do without it.

[1:18:10] Voice 6: Yeah.

[1:18:11] Voice 6: Okay.

[1:18:12] Voice 5: Anything else on the follow-up?

[1:18:15] Voice 5: No.

[1:18:16] Voice 5: Go ahead.

[1:18:17] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:18:19] Voice 5: So then we'll continue on to Section 8.2.

[1:18:22] Voice 5: That's simply a copy of the letter that we were asked to write to the committee to the SCRD.

[1:18:31] Voice 5: And that's it for the information.

[1:18:33] Voice 5: Hope that helps.

[1:18:33] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:18:35] Voice 5: I'm

[1:18:35] Voice 4: going to skip through.

[1:18:36] Voice 4: No application to referral today.

[1:18:38] Voice 4: And this brings us to just committee projects.

[1:18:40] Voice 4: The first one being the official committee plan.

[1:18:42] Voice 4: plan. If we have Sharon, excuse me, I apologize for the name, so Forsberg, I'm going to say,

[1:18:49] Voice 4: is a shoreline-based shore, complete shore planning, and perhaps we'll just turn it over

[1:18:58] Voice 4: to Sharon.

[1:18:59] Voice 5: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I may have misspoken before. I was just looking

[1:19:04] Voice 5: at the follow-up action report, and I'm not sure if this is the right time to deal with it or not,

[1:19:10] Voice 5: but i see there's a reference to it who on the the uh there's an outstanding request to

[1:19:20] Voice 5: schedule public hearing close bylaws relating to the heat support shoreline project um is that

[1:19:29] something um public

[1:19:32] Voice 5: hearing yeah the scheduling of that is something that's in progress whether

[1:19:37] Voice 5: or not we continue to do that or not is this time to discuss it or to be discussed later

[1:19:42] Voice 5: later when we're looking at the uh request from staff as to future work that's that what the

[1:19:50] Voice 5: expectation is i

[1:19:52] Voice 8: mean as of now we have a resolution to proceed with public hearings so

[1:19:57] Voice 8: i think

[1:19:58] Voice 5: that's okay two ways even right now might make more sense and have an opportunity

[1:20:05] Voice 5: for more discussion if we talk about it during the projects thank you thank you i just wasn't

[1:20:11] Voice 5: That's good. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:20:14] Voice 4: So then, so if that's all right, then at

[1:20:18] Voice 4: 10.1, we're at

[1:20:18] Voice 5: 11.30, and I anticipate we might get back at noon. And so perhaps we'll hear from Dr. Bransky a lot, and I can make sure I don't have to change the number.

[1:20:28] Voice 5: Yeah, I think it's introduced the project

[1:20:30] Voice 5: really quickly. So the staff report,

[1:20:33] Voice 8: it's on page 30 now in your package. I see that the attachment to the staff report flipped the attachment papers, but I just had a quick staff report.

[1:20:42] Voice 8: really just to provide a status update on the project to give the consultant an opportunity

[1:20:49] Voice 8: to present the engagement summary report and to suggest that the LTC endorse the report and then

[1:20:59] Voice 8: get some direction from the LTC to develop the work plan going forward and perhaps that discussion

[1:21:06] Voice 8: could also come at the time when we discuss the projects a little

[1:21:09] Voice 5: later on we'll

[1:21:10] Voice 8: leave that up to you

[1:21:13] Voice 8: but um you can see i've just sort of outlined the the project update which i believe uh sharon will

[1:21:20] Voice 8: get into and i think the one new sort of a piece of business that's happened since the last meeting

[1:21:28] Voice 8: was staff was able to meet with squabish nation staff and that meeting took place in november and

[1:21:36] Voice 8: islands trust staff met with referral manager and environmental specialist at prince title department

[1:21:42] Voice 8: um it was a really preliminary meeting about the project that you just gave an overview and

[1:21:49] Voice 8: discussed possible options for squamish nation involvement in the project

[1:21:53] Voice 8: it's been you know we've been trying to engage them for quite some time and they're showing

[1:21:58] Voice 8: a willingness to collaborate as

[1:22:02] Voice 5: we move forward they seem to have some capacity

[1:22:07] Voice 5: and how that looks it's sort of to be shaped over the course of the next year provided getting some

[1:22:14] Voice 5: direction from the LCC they are interested

[1:22:17] Voice 8: in a different engagement process than we've done

[1:22:22] Voice 8: before so not really so not necessarily referrals once the bylaws are created but being involved in

[1:22:29] Voice 8: actually

[1:22:29] Voice 5: putting the bylaws with us so a really collaborative process which

[1:22:35] Voice 8: um could be something

[1:22:38] Voice 8: sort of new for the trust so i just wanted to highlight that it's still a question mark but

[1:22:43] Voice 8: they have indicated a willingness to operate

[1:22:47] Voice 5: okay great just for clarity you're uh uh you're looking

[1:22:55] Voice 5: at page 39 of your agenda which is two recommendations or that you're hoping that

[1:22:59] Voice 5: the LTC will concur with you and make some

[1:23:02] Voice 4: movement in that direction.

[1:23:04] Voice 4: And so Sharon's now going to present us the report.

[1:23:07] Voice 4: That's probably the best thing.

[1:23:09] Voice 4: Although it may be that trustees have some questions at this moment,

[1:23:12] Voice 4: but perhaps

[1:23:13] Voice 5: we want to hear from the consultant first,

[1:23:15] Voice 5: and then we'll go into questions.

[1:23:16] Voice 5: Is that all right with you guys?

[1:23:17] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:23:20] And I'm really excited that you and the House of Trusts

[1:23:23] Voice 5: are able to embrace a different approach to working with nations

[1:23:26] Voice 5: to do this work that we've so few talks about and it's great to think out of box approach it

[1:23:35] Voice 5: into a great and i'm glad this class so um then without further

[1:23:38] Voice 4: ado sharon are you on the line

[1:23:40] Voice 4: there uh yep

[1:23:41] Voice 5: can you hear me okay yeah and if we if

[1:23:44] Voice 4: we tilt that screen up uh a little bit

[1:23:47] Voice 5: okay please we might be able to see a little bit better um there you go perfect and look a little

[1:23:53] Voice 5: bit in this direction so yeah that's great so

[1:23:57] Voice 4: go ahead do you have a powerpoint or anything

[1:24:00] Voice 4: are you just going to walk through it

[1:24:01] Voice 2: uh i will share my screen so i just want to uh thank the

[1:24:05] Voice 2: trustees for um having me on this uh at this meeting and then i'll just share my powerpoint

[1:24:11] Voice 2: presentation okay let

[1:24:22] Voice 6: me just go to share screen

[1:24:27] Voice 5: it's gonna be very hard for us to see this um

[1:24:33] Voice 5: because it's just on a small computer.

[1:24:38] Voice 5: So just so you're aware of that.

[1:24:40] Voice 2: Okay.

[1:24:41] Voice 2: Try and make that

[1:24:42] Voice 4: as big as you can.

[1:24:43] Voice 4: Get rid of the sidebar.

[1:24:45] Voice 2: Okay, so you can actually see it then?

[1:24:47] Voice 4: Yes.

[1:24:48] Voice 4: And if you go to the slideshow view, then we'll get a full screen.

[1:24:52] Voice 2: Is that good?

[1:24:53] Voice 4: That's better, but it's as good as it's going to get.

[1:24:56] Voice 2: Yeah, that's as large as I can make it on the screen.

[1:24:59] Voice 4: Yeah, that's excellent.

[1:25:00] Voice 4: Thank you.

[1:25:01] Voice 4: So just go ahead.

[1:25:03] Voice 4: We'll struggle along.

[1:25:05] Voice 2: Okay. All right. Thank you.

[1:25:08] Voice 2: Okay. So, yeah, this presentation is to present the results of the public engagement.

[1:25:15] Voice 2: So I heard Peter's comments, and I did want to just say, preface, that we did receive correspondence from Peter's Conservation Group,

[1:25:28] Voice 2: and we did incorporate many of their comments as we did through the whole process.

[1:25:35] Voice 2: So Bayshall Planning Services was retained to conduct a targeted review of the official community plan

[1:25:43] Voice 2: and the land use bylaw and it was very targeted in certain specific areas

[1:25:49] Voice 2: and to develop and implement an engagement plan

[1:25:54] Voice 2: And then we made recommendations based on the public input with regards to updating the official community plan and the land use bylaw.

[1:26:05] Voice 2: So this is just a list of all the community engagement activities and this is included in the report.

[1:26:13] Voice 2: And it just outlines all the activities that we've conducted over the last six months.

[1:26:18] Voice 2: And you'll see in the report that it speaks to two group meetings, working group meetings.

[1:26:29] Voice 2: And we had a meeting on Gambia.

[1:26:33] Voice 2: And then we launched the survey and that had input from the working group.

[1:26:39] Voice 2: And we've taken into consideration the discussion papers that were provided through the Islands Trust.

[1:26:46] Voice 2: trust. And the survey, which was introduced in August, we generated 83 responses just

[1:26:57] Voice 2: online. And then we had correspondence as well from various groups and individuals.

[1:27:03] Voice 2: And all this information went back to the working group for input on various stages

[1:27:11] Voice 2: of the process, and then we finalized our report with the working group in December, January, and here we are today.

[1:27:22] Voice 2: So basically the report took an overview of the Gambia Island official community plan, existing policies, and land use regulations.

[1:27:34] Voice 2: And we focus specifically on archaeological and cultural site protection, forest ecosystem protection, shoreline protection, and access to public docks.

[1:27:48] Voice 2: These were the only areas that we focused the review, because there'd been previous work done in 2015, so we were building on what had already been reviewed previously.

[1:28:03] Voice 2: So we and these four issues were the hot topic areas that more focus needed to be done.

[1:28:12] Voice 2: So that's why it was such a specific targeted review.

[1:28:16] Voice 2: And it may not have addressed some of the concerns that we heard through the survey.

[1:28:24] Voice 2: So basically we took these areas to the public to receive input and we did that through the survey, which was our largest engagement piece.

[1:28:38] Voice 2: And based on the size of the community, we did get a 10% return rate and that typically is considered quite high for any surveys.

[1:28:50] Voice 2: surveys and it was just an online survey but we did allow people to contact us as the consultant

[1:28:57] Voice 2: to provide input if they felt that there was questions that they they wanted more information

[1:29:04] Voice 2: about more context more background so we've made ourselves available to the public as

[1:29:11] Voice 2: well and we did engage with the public. Not too much but there was some correspondence

[1:29:21] Voice 2: between Ostrada group, individual residents and the conservation society. And so basically

[1:29:31] Voice 2: our comments are consistent with the feedback that we gathered from the community engagement.

[1:29:39] Voice 2: So, just to summarise what our summary of recommendations are, which is focused specifically

[1:29:48] Voice 2: on the OCP and the land use by-law, and the provisions within the OCP and the land use

[1:29:58] Voice 2: spiral a very

[1:30:00] Voice 2: different than some of the comments that we gained from the survey. So for example, you know, when

[1:30:06] Voice 2: we're talking about trails, that's outside of the realm of this targeted area and it's not actually

[1:30:13] Voice 2: something that we can build into a land use bylaw unless we change the land use designation.

[1:30:21] Voice 2: So those are things that can come out further down through this process as you move towards

[1:30:28] Voice 2: and drafting bylaws and then also it this whole process still has to go for further consultation

[1:30:37] Voice 2: this is just just to gather public input into the existing um ocp and land use bylaws so it's

[1:30:46] Voice 2: these are not like final in stone recommendations um so i just want to make that clear that you

[1:30:55] Voice 2: know these aren't final they're still subject to further consultation is i'm just getting some

[1:31:02] Voice 2: feedback is that a question or

[1:31:04] Voice 5: okay um okay so um just

[1:31:15] Voice 2: to talk about the first nations um

[1:31:19] Voice 2: i am pleased to hear that the islands trust have reached out to the squamish and are now going to

[1:31:25] Voice 2: be part of the OCP process. This, at the start of the project, wasn't part of the communications,

[1:31:34] Voice 2: although we notified the Squamish First Nations that this process was ongoing. And one of the key

[1:31:43] Voice 2: policy tools should be to establish development permit areas in the OCP to strengthen provisions

[1:31:52] Voice 2: provisions in the Provincial Heritage Conservation Act.

[1:31:56] Voice 2: So essentially, through

[1:32:00] Voice 2: communications with the Squamish First

[1:32:03] Voice 2: Nations and other First Nations within the area, it's this

[1:32:09] Voice 2: policies can be refined to reflect the input from the First Nations.

[1:32:16] Voice 2: And I think it's important to recognize

[1:32:17] Voice 2: that the Islands Trust themselves, there's a very strong commitment to reconciliation through UNDRIP.

[1:32:26] Voice 2: And what we would recommend is that these policies that the Islands Trust Council have already adopted

[1:32:38] Voice 2: be incorporated into not just this OCP, but all OCPs going forward.

[1:32:44] Voice 2: because many of the OTPs are outdated,

[1:32:48] Voice 2: so they need to be updated to reflect the language for UNDRIP.

[1:32:53] Voice 2: And so I think that the LTC are well positioned

[1:32:58] Voice 2: to put those policies in place.

[1:33:02] Voice 2: And then that would be, you know,

[1:33:06] Voice 2: that helps with future collaboration

[1:33:09] Voice 2: with Squamish First Nations and other First Nations as well.

[1:33:14] Voice 2: And so I think going forward, much of the these policies are predicated in dialogue with First Nations.

[1:33:24] Voice 2: So and that was something that we heard in the survey, too, is that there's a there's a willingness for, you know, the community to work with First Nations.

[1:33:33] Voice 2: They want to have more policies and recognition of the heritage conservation aspects of First Nations within Gambia.

[1:33:46] Voice 2: So I think this is a really great opportunity to engage with Squamish First Nations.

[1:33:51] Voice 2: And it's also a learning opportunity, too, for the community.

[1:33:57] Voice 2: And there's certainly through the survey, there's a willingness to work together.

[1:34:04] Voice 2: So the next area, which is an important topic, is shoreline protection and access to public docks and policy directions in that regard.

[1:34:18] Voice 2: So basically, we've tried to separate shoreline protection and shoreline access because they're very different, but at the same time, they rely on protection of the shoreline.

[1:34:30] Voice 2: So, essentially, what this policy change is recommending is that a new development permit area be introduced to increase the existing assessment area, which is 15 meters to 30 meters from the natural boundary of the sea.

[1:34:51] Voice 2: And so what this helps to achieve is to limit development within a 30 metre area and to limit tree removal.

[1:35:03] Voice 2: So it just increases the area of assessment so that, for example, if a resident wants to develop within that 30 metres, they can do that.

[1:35:18] Voice 2: But what it means is that they have to prepare a report from a qualified environmental professional

[1:35:27] Voice 2: to look at what the proposal is and to put it in the context of what's it going to mean on the natural habitat in the area.

[1:35:37] Voice 2: And so it just allows more assessment for those areas that are close to the shoreline.

[1:35:45] Voice 2: Gambia limits site of buildings within 15 meters of its setback, but minor structures are permitted under the bylaw throughout most of the shoreline.

[1:35:59] Voice 2: So this just adds another level of assessment for any proposed development that's within the 15 meter setback.

[1:36:09] Voice 2: And so, I mean, there's a development permit area in one of the areas on Gambia.

[1:36:19] Voice 2: So it already has been established.

[1:36:22] Voice 2: It just means that it gives more ability to control tree removal and what is being built within a 30-meter setback rather than a 15-meter setback.

[1:36:35] Voice 2: Shoreline Access, where private docks are currently allowed, the use of communal docks

[1:36:41] Voice 2: is to be encouraged and public use of community docks and other types of wharf development.

[1:36:48] Voice 2: So essentially, one of the things that we heard from the survey is that there was concern

[1:36:53] Voice 2: about the loss of community docks, public docks, such as New Brighton.

[1:37:00] Voice 2: and it's encouraging to hear that there's been a budget determined to review that structure

[1:37:10] Voice 2: through the Sunshine Coast Regional District and so that's encouraging because that is one of the

[1:37:18] Voice 2: main sources of access to the island and many islanders felt that without that they would

[1:37:25] Voice 2: struggle with accessing the with their recreational properties and there are

[1:37:33] Voice 2: other shared dock situations in strata complexes on Gambia now those are shared

[1:37:43] Voice 2: docks for those residents within a strata and they're not a lot it doesn't

[1:37:50] Voice 2: permit the public to use those docks. So, you know, that is not, it makes it difficult for

[1:38:01] Voice 2: residents to get around the island. And so really, the idea is to limit private docks,

[1:38:11] Voice 2: private moorages. But at the same time, if the resident needs access, then they still want to

[1:38:19] Voice 2: retain the ability to have access to their own private home via a public their own private

[1:38:28] Voice 2: walls so going forward one of the ways that you can address the shoreline access is either to

[1:38:40] Voice 2: encourage shared docks between residents where practical and to and when strata development

[1:38:48] Voice 2: development applications come forward on the shoreline, encourage them to create a group

[1:38:55] Voice 2: moorage WAF so that you eliminate residents coming forward with their own private moorage

[1:39:03] Voice 2: applications. And that way, you limit how much impact is happening on shoreline. So, you know,

[1:39:11] Voice 2: it's looking at ways to optimize access to the island via the shoreline and making it accessible

[1:39:21] Voice 2: to as many homeowners as possible and that can be done through the land use bylaw through zoning

[1:39:31] Voice 2: ensuring you know so that you I mean having an institutional designation is one way of doing

[1:39:38] Voice 2: doing it as well to maintain public access to docks.

[1:39:46] Voice 2: And then the final area that we looked at was forest protection and there is certainly no

[1:39:53] Voice 2: bias from Bayshaw with regards to, you know, either way protection of forest lands makes sense.

[1:40:08] Voice 2: you know from for many different reasons but ultimately much of the land is held with the

[1:40:15] Voice 2: province and the um for its licenses that um exist uh those those are are um dormant as of now

[1:40:26] Voice 2: but there's concern that without cancellation of those uh leases the land could ultimately

[1:40:36] Voice 2: Sharon sorry our fridge is melting so we're just gonna just bear with my body in front of you

[1:40:43] Voice 2: okay I'm almost done here um so uh so for forest protection basically um islands trust has a strong

[1:40:53] Voice 2: advocacy role that can be played here as with shoreline uh and shoreline protection um so

[1:41:01] Voice 2: So you know we strongly encourage communications with Squamish First Nations and consideration

[1:41:08] Voice 2: of policies and regulatory tools to encourage tree and forest ecosystem protection on public

[1:41:15] Voice 2: as well as private lands.

[1:41:17] Voice 2: And this we believe can be achieved on private lands through an increased DP area to 30 meters

[1:41:31] Voice 2: because now you're capturing a larger area that could be,

[1:41:37] Voice 2: tree cover could be maintained through a development permit area.

[1:41:42] Voice 2: Right now it's 15 metres and there's been concerns raised

[1:41:47] Voice 2: about the amount of logging along the shoreline.

[1:41:50] Voice 2: So this is the rationale for recommending a 30 metre setback.

[1:41:54] Voice 2: And this can be achieved through this process

[1:41:56] Voice 2: and through further consultation with the First Nations,

[1:42:01] Voice 2: and with the community at large of Gambia.

[1:42:06] Voice 2: So this is the final slide, and then I can open it up for questions.

[1:42:12] Voice 2: But basically, this just outlines where we are in the process and for next steps.

[1:42:19] Voice 2: And I'll let staff speak to what comes next after this report.

[1:42:31] Voice 2: So basically, we've concluded the community consultation with outlined the recommendations for changing changes to draft bylaws and going forward consultation with first Squamish First Nations is is essential and to adopt the policies already drafted by the LTC in the future OCPs.

[1:42:59] Voice 2: So that concludes the overview of the consultation on the OCP land use by-law review.

[1:43:09] Voice 2: So I can open it up to questions and thank you for your time today, trustees.

[1:43:15] Voice 7: Thank you, Sharon, for the presentation

[1:43:17] Voice 5: and the summary on where we're at.

[1:43:22] Voice 5: And so I'll just go to trustees and ask if you have any questions for the consultant, for Sharon or for staff.

[1:43:27] Voice 5: Just a clarification that

[1:43:29] Voice 8: the community consultation isn't included, it's just that this was a preliminary consultation and then there will still be more, you know, engagement with First Nations and

[1:43:42] Voice 5: still more engagement to come. This was just really the preliminary pre-work.

[1:43:47] Voice 5: Yeah, as recognized in this last graph, winter 2023 to summer 2023, further public engagement

[1:43:54] Voice 5: on the proposed bylaws, and about bylaw public hearing of this later on.

[1:44:02] Voice 6: Yeah, this timeline might

[1:44:03] Voice 5: be a bit longer.

[1:44:07] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:44:08] Voice 5: I just have a very brief question.

[1:44:12] Voice 5: I just want to thank you, Sharon, for you and your partners for doing all this work

[1:44:18] Voice 5: and the community engagement process over the past year.

[1:44:23] Voice 5: I know it was quite challenging.

[1:44:25] Voice 5: I have just a simple question.

[1:44:27] Voice 5: There's a, I assume the surveys,

[1:44:32] Voice 5: there's raw data somewhere.

[1:44:33] Voice 5: Where is that city?

[1:44:35] Voice 5: Is that with the Bayshore

[1:44:36] Voice 5: or is that with the local trust

[1:44:38] Voice 5: or the staff at Northern Oaks?

[1:44:44] Voice 2: The information from the survey

[1:44:46] Voice 2: is with the Islands Trust. There's the raw data from, we did this in SurveyMonkey. And so we did

[1:44:55] Voice 2: download it all into a Word document. So it is available for review by trustees. I think all you

[1:45:04] Voice 2: would need to do is contact Marlis and it can be made available. And we

[1:45:09] Voice 2: did actually do an

[1:45:11] Voice 2: appendices as well and and that also is a larger summary of um basically what is in this report so

[1:45:20] Voice 2: all the tables that we've put together you can find the background to those and all the comments

[1:45:27] Voice 2: that were associated with that it just made for a very large document and uh so

[1:45:33] Voice 5: okay thank you

[1:45:37] Voice 6: that's all i have joe any questions um

[1:45:41] Voice 5: in the discussion uh about uh docs uh how we deal with

[1:45:47] Voice 5: docs and development of docs going forward in the future is a concern i think everywhere

[1:45:52] Voice 4: certainly concern our keys uh and i'm just looking at the survey results here um it's interesting

[1:46:01] Voice 4: that residents

[1:46:01] Voice 5: again here don't seem to be particularly concerned about private docs

[1:46:04] Voice 5: and they're pretty pro it looks for

[1:46:09] Voice 4: shared dogs and

[1:46:11] Voice 7: they

[1:46:12] Voice 4: think they need

[1:46:12] Voice 4: more dogs so that suggests a situation that's right for positive incentives

[1:46:19] Voice 5: to

[1:46:20] Voice 5: encourage shared dogs not just punitive measures what discussion with the

[1:46:25] Voice 4: community or just among experts has there been about in the types of the

[1:46:30] Voice 4: positive incentives that can be rolled into a

[1:46:34] Voice 5: revised OCP to encourage shared docks?

[1:46:41] Voice 2: Yep, I mean there's definitely wording that can be drafted around encouragements of shared docks

[1:46:48] Voice 2: where practical. Basically it's the Island Trust have jurisdiction over the connection point of

[1:47:00] Voice 2: docks and the lease is through the province so there's a dual approval process that takes place

[1:47:08] Voice 2: and as long as the OCP and the land use bylaw support dock installations then you know people

[1:47:21] Voice 2: can still build docks if if it makes sense for them on their own private property where the

[1:47:28] Voice 2: the challenge occurs is if you have um you know where you've got inland properties and they have

[1:47:38] Voice 2: to access a public wharf and there's limited access to public wharfs close to where those

[1:47:45] Voice 2: properties are located so in essence it would make sense for future dock development to build

[1:47:54] Voice 2: in more public access versus encouraging private docks because then you end up isolating your

[1:48:04] Voice 2: community so you have to think okay where is all the development going in where are these

[1:48:09] Voice 2: inland lots and how are people going to access them because it puts more demand

[1:48:14] Voice 2: on the public wall and we heard through a survey just how important the new Brighton dock is

[1:48:22] Voice 2: And there's other docks, too, that are managed by the Sunshine Coast Regional District for residents in the northern portion of the island.

[1:48:34] Voice 2: So I think it's, I think through the zoning, you're able to look at where it makes sense for any kind of public doc and to work with other agencies on how to achieve more public access via docs.

[1:48:52] Voice 2: So I don't know whether that fully answers your question, but I mean, certainly any future development on subdivision and taking into consideration access by water is important.

[1:49:07] Voice 4: Well, I take your point that I think it's your point that over

[1:49:12] Voice 5: and above shared docks, the strong preference ought to be for maximizing public docks.

[1:49:19] Voice 5: say that's what i'm hearing you say because that's going to maximize access for more people

[1:49:25] Voice 5: inland yeah but it doesn't take away from the fact that there's still people who own properties that

[1:49:30] Voice 5: are closer to the waterfront or even on the waterfront uh and of course you've got historical

[1:49:35] Voice 5: dogs but anybody who's developing a property there which by developing basically putting up a house

[1:49:42] Voice 5: or a cabin and needs to have a dock uh yes there's that whole process of applying for a private dock

[1:49:48] and there's a certain amount of I

[1:49:52] Voice 5: don't want to return this but bureaucratic friction involved

[1:49:55] Voice 5: there and certainly a lot of expense even just getting the expert reports required for that

[1:49:59] Voice 5: I'm just thinking that it's obviously desirable to maximize you know separate from the larger

[1:50:08] Voice 5: policy question the public docs are probably to be encouraged more than anything else

[1:50:14] Voice 5: realistically Canberra is a huge island keeps a smaller island but there's going to be areas where

[1:50:19] Voice 5: where there's no alternative other than having a private dock of some sort.

[1:50:25] Voice 7: And

[1:50:26] Voice 5: in that situation, it seems to me it's a terrific idea

[1:50:30] Voice 5: if you can really encourage people to share a dock.

[1:50:32] Voice 5: And what I'm getting at is, you know, just having zoning that permits it is one thing.

[1:50:39] Voice 5: But I'm talking about positive incentives, actually reducing bureaucratic friction,

[1:50:45] Voice 5: reducing even the cost, so that people look

[1:50:52] Voice 4: in that direction as a positive alternative.

[1:50:56] Voice 4: Like it's a real incentive, it's a positive incentive, not just permission.

[1:51:00] Voice 4: I mean, has there been discussion of what kind of positive incentives could be rolled into a bylaw to

[1:51:06] Voice 5: encourage that? That's the question.

[1:51:08] Voice 5: So,

[1:51:09] Voice 2: if we look at the application process for a private moorage, right now, the timeline to get an application approved is probably two years.

[1:51:23] Voice 2: And so, if you've got a dock that's shared, the incentive is that it's going to be a higher priority for Crown Lands to review that application versus a private moorage.

[1:51:36] Voice 2: so there is the incentive there and you can actually apply under different categories

[1:51:43] Voice 2: so you know for anybody that's looking to do a private mortgage it's worth sitting down with

[1:51:49] Voice 2: crown lands to figure out you know to look at your situation especially if it's feasible for

[1:51:57] Voice 2: a shared dock and there's legal agreements that the province will require as part of issuance of

[1:52:05] Voice 2: with any authorization for a private, for a mortgage.

[1:52:10] Voice 2: So yes, in answer to your question,

[1:52:13] Voice 2: there's definitely incentives

[1:52:16] Voice 2: just in the overall application process.

[1:52:20] Voice 6: All right, thank you.

[1:52:23] Voice 6: Okay, any other

[1:52:24] Voice 4: questions, no?

[1:52:26] Voice 4: So there is two recommendations if you're ready for that

[1:52:30] Voice 4: on that page 39 of your agenda

[1:52:33] Voice 4: that staff can help me here that if I'm not mistaken

[1:52:37] Voice 4: is that

[1:52:37] Voice 5: what we're doing here at the moment is receiving this gambreo official community plan uh

[1:52:43] Voice 5: report targeted review project summary report and extension we were endorsing what we've heard

[1:52:51] Voice 5: and said read in the report and then the next opportunity is to direct staff to um

[1:52:56] Voice 5: to bring us some considerations for next steps if you're ready for that i will put these

[1:53:04] Voice 5: recommendations uh for with some slight editing but um but then i'd like to speak to the project

[1:53:11] Voice 5: as a whole i've uh observed over the last few months since this living was produced

[1:53:21] Voice 5: so i hope that's to say about it uh one of the things i would like to

[1:53:28] Voice 5: uh on the motion um i'm just gonna clarify i'm going to suggest we receive it not necessarily

[1:53:33] Voice 5: endorse it just because there's some items in there that i think community members are not

[1:53:41] Voice 5: exactly comfortable with the direction of the point so if we receive it i mean stop the

[1:53:46] Voice 5: information is wrong that's just how it's being determined so um i move that the gambler and

[1:53:52] Voice 5: local trust committee receives the gambler on local our official community plan and land use

[1:53:58] Voice 5: bylock targeted project engagement summary report date of january 12 20. okay so move to have a

[1:54:05] Voice 5: second and second any further discussion not from me okay so i'll call the vote all those in favor

[1:54:11] Voice 5: thank you very much kate and the second function i move that the gambler and local trust committee

[1:54:17] Voice 5: request staff to create a work plan trust consideration that will outline the next steps

[1:54:24] Voice 5: in the Gambier

[1:54:25] Voice 5: Island Fish and Community Plan and Land Use By-Lock Targeting.

[1:54:30] Voice 5: Okay, so seconded. Ricardo, thank you for the discussion.

[1:54:35] Voice 5: Dr. David, thank you very much.

[1:54:39] Voice 5: So I'll just go back a little bit and just provide a wider context here.

[1:54:47] Voice 5: I think with all surveys, there's strengths and challenges,

[1:54:51] Voice 5: and you usually get pushback on surveys for wording and angles and structure.

[1:54:59] Voice 5: I've never seen a survey where this hasn't occurred.

[1:55:03] Voice 5: Given that, there were some specific challenges with this process to date.

[1:55:09] Voice 5: And that is partly the way Gambier is structured.

[1:55:13] Voice 5: It's small, isolated areas that are primarily recreational property owners.

[1:55:18] Voice 5: So it's very difficult to reach out to people.

[1:55:21] Voice 5: and in a cohesive way what works for one community doesn't work for another um so that really

[1:55:29] Voice 5: was clear as the survey was was put out there um the issues that we're dealing with a wide ranking

[1:55:36] Voice 5: complex and that doesn't lend itself easily to a survey that that really gets so not some of

[1:55:46] Voice 5: issues i want to acknowledge that one of the reasons that one of the big reasons why this

[1:55:52] Voice 5: sea process was started is because of a threat of logging in 2014 um where it was potentially

[1:56:04] Voice 5: almost well more than half of the groundland on

[1:56:07] Voice 5: gander island would be open for logging to

[1:56:10] Voice 6: to

[1:56:11] Voice 5: logging with leases.

[1:56:14] Voice 5: That was a huge threat, and because of the ability

[1:56:19] Voice 5: in our zoning to allow for logging,

[1:56:23] Voice 5: that people felt that that could go forward.

[1:56:25] Voice 5: Now we understand that anywhere in the Crown land

[1:56:30] Voice 5: are permitted, you have to have a certain language

[1:56:35] Voice 5: in the zoning that allows for logging,

[1:56:38] Voice 5: but there is things that we can do within that

[1:56:40] Voice 5: map to try and make it more modern and hopefully move that particular activity away from what

[1:56:48] Voice 5: our zone was, which is recreational conservation.

[1:56:52] Voice 5: That was one of the reasons why that logging project was so difficult to swallow.

[1:56:59] Voice 5: So there's some big issues that were hard to really get, and I think people need to

[1:57:04] Voice 5: understand, and we've mentioned a couple of times now, this is just the beginning.

[1:57:08] Voice 5: serving this one step we'll move forward with further consultation and i'm hoping to be able

[1:57:15] Voice 5: to provide that average next year as the trustee for this area and look for ways to make that work

[1:57:24] Voice 5: um i don't think there was any huge surprises i do think there was confusion around the docks because

[1:57:30] Voice 5: Because for a variety of reasons, there was the Ender Harbor dock scenario that's front to center in the Sunshine Coast, and people had a confusion between that process versus what we are doing.

[1:57:48] Voice 5: Also, there was the Honest Trust Policy Statement, which had been talking about potentially restricting docks.

[1:57:55] Voice 5: Again, that got pulled into the mix a little bit.

[1:57:58] Voice 5: And also because the New Brighton dock is such a big issue for a certain part of our community, it also got rolled into the survey, even though that really wasn't how it was developed, it did run forward again, how important our public dock is.

[1:58:16] Voice 5: So there's various things.

[1:58:19] Voice 5: Even so, I think we are in a good space right now,

[1:58:22] Voice 5: and I'm looking forward to moving this onto the next steps.

[1:58:28] Voice 5: And one thing I'm not sure about,

[1:58:31] Voice 5: and I'm speaking to staff here,

[1:58:33] Voice 5: do you need a specific motion to move forward

[1:58:36] Voice 5: with connecting the Squamish Nation staff

[1:58:40] Voice 5: on this particular?

[1:58:41] Voice 5: like I feel like we're you don't need to slow down unless there's a reason for it so

[1:58:49] Voice 5: I think step one is to with consideration of the content refer this report to the Squamish

[1:58:59] Voice 5: station if staff consider that an appropriate step now I would like to give them opportunity

[1:59:07] Voice 5: to start that now rather than wait till yeah

[1:59:11] Voice 8: and squamish in my conversations with them had

[1:59:15] Voice 8: indicated that they would be interested in reviewing this report so

[1:59:19] Voice 5: if um yeah we would

[1:59:21] Voice 5: like to make a motion to formally refer it then i move before you jump into that

[1:59:27] Voice 5: we just ask a

[1:59:28] Voice 5: question for clarity um because it's about the language if we're referring the report to them

[1:59:34] Voice 5: We expect a response back.

[1:59:36] Voice 5: If we're forwarding the report to them for their information, that's different.

[1:59:41] Voice 5: I don't know that we're ready for that consultation stage yet.

[1:59:45] Voice 5: So I think, what would your advice be?

[1:59:47] Voice 5: I think it would be just around forwarding for information, because we are still just

[1:59:52] Voice 5: in early discussions with them.

[2:00:00] Voice 5: This point, I'm not an expert in language and respectful approach. Has anybody seen anything in this report that may be objectionable, but

[2:00:17] Voice 6: that stands out?

[2:00:22] Voice 6: Objectionable to whom?

[2:00:23] Voice 6: To, I haven't seen anything that I

[2:00:31] Voice 5: can see, but I don't want to report something if there's something obvious.

[2:00:37] Voice 5: said that this is a covering letter if i get a contact credit it gives an opportunity to check

[2:00:47] Voice 5: if there's if you find anything in this report um offensive particularly in the situation where

[2:00:55] Voice 5: we do not have in place our um our intergovernmental senior is on the board to

[2:01:02] Voice 5: review that so that's a that's a great question to ask all the time yeah yeah so you don't need

[2:01:11] Voice 5: that in the motion no so i'm gonna i'll make a motion that the gambia will trust me forward the

[2:01:20] Voice 5: um the report i will just um uh the report titled um gambier island official community plan and

[2:01:32] Voice 5: land use bylaw department project engagement summary report dated january 12 2023 to squamish

[2:01:42] Voice 5: Nation staff that writes the titles. Is that their local area? I'll just say Squamish Nation

[2:01:51] Voice 6: staff. Karen,

[2:01:57] Voice 5: did you get that? Catherine, sorry.

[2:01:59] Voice 3: I got that. Just at the end, because the voice

[2:02:03] Voice 3: was warped, would it be to Squamish First Nation staff? Yes.

[2:02:11] Voice 6: Okay. So let's move and second it.

[2:02:19] Voice 6: any

[2:02:19] Voice 5: further discussion all those in favor thank you um that's great yeah so thank you to staff

[2:02:28] Voice 5: for really stepping up this was quite a process to date we worked long and hard over the last

[2:02:35] Voice 5: eight months to get this going with the baseline thanks and i'm not new here as a chair and i'm

[2:02:46] Voice 5: So we are at a quarter after 12.

[2:02:48] Voice 5: We are scheduled for a break.

[2:02:51] Voice 4: I don't want to move into the next item

[2:02:54] Voice 4: because I think it's quite a bit of discussion there.

[2:02:56] Voice 4: I don't want to necessarily give a short trip

[2:02:58] Voice 5: to the author of the letter

[2:03:01] Voice 5: that's on our agenda in correspondence,

[2:03:04] Voice 5: but I don't know that if he wants to comment

[2:03:05] Voice 5: or anything on it.

[2:03:08] Voice 5: And so we could receive that letter

[2:03:10] Voice 5: if there's any remarks on it now

[2:03:11] Voice 5: before we go to the break

[2:03:12] Voice 5: and that would have that piece of business um or i don't know if mr rogers is planning on staying

[2:03:17] Voice 5: so maybe uh

[2:03:20] Voice 4: it's at the pleasure of the ltc i would just jump us to 11.1 and we'll pick up

[2:03:24] Voice 4: 10.2 after our break and um and so we've got a piece of correspondence here from uh mr rogers

[2:03:32] Voice 4: justine um thank you um and ask um it's on the agenda so we would obviously receive it by default

[2:03:40] Voice 4: Is there any direction that you'd like to take with respect to those course waters?

[2:03:46] Voice 5: Through the chair, just in response to a particular aspect of the letter, it's from the post-Eastbourne water system.

[2:03:56] Voice 5: Just to let you know that there is information happening on February 7th for Eastbourne and local area residents put on by the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

[2:04:10] Voice 5: and it's to talk about the the project itself and um discuss the implications and any concerns

[2:04:19] Voice 5: people may have as they live around that area and where it's going from here potentially

[2:04:25] Voice 5: i'm not sure if it's appropriate to ask marlis but there was a there was some concerns about

[2:04:33] Voice 5: whether or not a well camp will work resolved but you may not

[2:04:43] Voice 5: be able to discuss them uh as

[2:04:46] Voice 5: far as i

[2:04:46] Voice 8: know um i did review proposed well drilling and the ones that have been drilled

[2:04:53] Voice 8: and they are all committed uses okay um there is one

[2:04:56] Voice 6: so um that's all happening next week okay

[2:05:08] Voice 5: so no further action

[2:05:10] Voice 5: then

[2:05:12] Voice 5: okay well thank you very much

[2:05:13] Voice 5: and so I'll certainly

[2:05:15] Voice 5: phone back to our friends

[2:05:18] Voice 5: obviously we're not getting to that

[2:05:20] Voice 5: item that you're most interested in so

[2:05:22] Voice 5: after the break but that's the nature of our agenda

[2:05:24] Voice 5: so let us

[2:05:26] Voice 4: recess

[2:05:27] Voice 5: it's a quarter

[2:05:28] Voice 5: after let's slightly after

[2:05:30] Voice 5: quarter after

[2:05:31] Voice 4: let's come back to 1245

[2:05:32] Voice 4: and keep us on schedule

[2:05:33] Voice 4: I would love to be able to catch a very

[2:05:36] Voice 4: out of what you face later on today

[2:05:38] Voice 4: and so let us recess and

[2:05:40] Voice 5: thank you everybody for the conversation here today so i want to thank

[2:05:48] Voice 5: everybody for coming back on time and for the work that we've conducted this morning and those of you

[2:05:54] Voice 5: that are just tuning in this is uh first local trust committee of this new term and uh i'm

[2:06:02] Voice 5: I'm joined here today by Kate-Louise Stanford, Joe Bernardo, and myself, Peter Luckman,

[2:06:10] elected on the team side, and then your chair.

[2:06:12] Also, of course, we've got our staff here, Bob, Mark, and Renee, and of course, Warren

[2:06:19] Voice 5: Dingman, and the public business.

[2:06:22] Voice 5: We have concluded a lot of the business on the first section of our agenda, and we are

[2:06:28] Voice 5: at 10.2, a review of active and future projects.

[2:06:33] Voice 4: We have a staff report here, but before I begin, again, I want to recognize meeting

[2:06:39] Voice 4: on Coast Salish territory, particularly the lands here of the Squamish

[2:06:43] Voice 5: and the Tsleil-Waututh

[2:06:44] Voice 5: and Musqueam, and it's important to recognize and remember that this is the homeland of

[2:06:53] Voice 5: Coast Salish people since time immemorial, and I'm grateful to be here.

[2:06:58] Voice 5: And so, Marla, are you prepared to start us off with the summary of the staff report?

[2:07:06] Voice 8: Yeah, so I just prepared a short staff report that lists the two active projects that you have going on currently, and then a list of the future projects.

[2:07:18] Voice 8: projects. And you'll note that they all have the same date added, which was September 1st, 2022.

[2:07:25] Voice 8: And that's not correct, but the list was revamped after that September 1st meeting. And so when it

[2:07:33] Voice 8: got re-entered into the system, it just showed that as date added as that

[2:07:39] Voice 5: date. But a lot of

[2:07:40] Voice 5: them have been on there for a very long time i just will remind you that um each ltc

[2:07:49] Voice 8: is committed

[2:07:50] Voice 8: one major and one minor project um and if the ltc is wishing to undertake a major project in the

[2:07:59] Voice 8: next fiscal which would be the 24 25 fiscal year it

[2:08:04] Voice 5: would be good to start developing a business

[2:08:06] Voice 5: business case now so then we would be able to finalize and endorse the business case by uh July

[2:08:12] Voice 5: 2023.

[2:08:17] Voice 6: I think that's

[2:08:18] Voice 5: that's kind of it you know there's just a little brief um note about the

[2:08:23] Voice 8: application so staff has processed 43 land permits uh last term you

[2:08:30] Voice 5: can see them wrote down there

[2:08:35] Voice 5: yeah so i think that that's sort of if you have any questions maybe

[2:08:40] Voice 6: my best answer okay

[2:08:47] Voice 6: trustees what

[2:08:48] Voice 5: do you want to know any questions about what you've just heard and what you want

[2:08:53] Voice 5: to do with the votes on the list okay who's down uh through the chair to staff um i understand that

[2:09:02] Voice 5: The Gambier OCP process is probably moving to the regional planning committee, but is that included as part of our project?

[2:09:23] Voice 5: Yeah, that would be your major project.

[2:09:25] Voice 5: And if I understand your just preliminary thoughts about where the OCP project is at right now, there is a possibility that it will sit as far as activity, it would primarily First Nations, in which case any further work that the local trust would like to do with the community,

[2:09:53] Voice 5: which I think there is further background for the communication, further clarification work to be done,

[2:10:02] Voice 5: would sit primarily with me just doing my time.

[2:10:09] Voice 5: I don't see a lot of opportunity for staff support.

[2:10:15] Voice 5: I mean, that would be, I think, up for discussion with the planner that gets assigned to this project.

[2:10:22] Voice 8: So I think, you know, coming forward next, potentially next meeting would be the work plan as what's their

[2:10:29] Voice 8: suspicions with Squamish and how that would look.

[2:10:32] Voice 8: And so how much time and budget would be

[2:10:34] Voice 5: left over for community engagement?

[2:10:37] Voice 5: I think it would sort of, yeah.

[2:10:39] Voice 5: So I'm trying to enable, for lack of a better word, a way of not stopping us from that,

[2:10:51] Voice 5: but acknowledging that it might not be activity-level advice.

[2:10:55] Voice 5: It may not be front and center for the next year.

[2:11:00] Voice 5: And are there assurances that could then come back

[2:11:04] Voice 5: into a higher activity level once we've had

[2:11:08] Voice 5: that engagement from the small to small level?

[2:11:14] Voice 5: In that case, maybe that project can sit aside

[2:11:19] Voice 5: and enable another project to come.

[2:11:23] Voice 7: I'm

[2:11:23] Voice 5: desperately trying to get one of the two projects, because I do think we have a really strong case for trying

[2:11:34] Voice 6: to get the North Pole portion of the country at

[2:11:39] Voice 5: least activated.

[2:11:42] Voice 5: This problem isn't going to get better. It's only going to get worse.

[2:11:47] Voice 5: We always talked about trying to respond to climate change in the nation.

[2:11:53] Voice 5: This is front and center in this particular trust group.

[2:11:59] Voice 5: It has, because of the nature of that particular island, it has concerns that none of the other

[2:12:07] Voice 5: islands have.

[2:12:08] Voice 5: So it's very difficult to sort of combine it with other activities or to find the keys

[2:12:14] Voice 5: again.

[2:12:16] Voice 5: So I just want to acknowledge that it has sat on our lands for a very long time, certainly

[2:12:21] Voice 5: certainly not the only one that's sat for very long time,

[2:12:24] Voice 5: but I also think it's quite different.

[2:12:28] Voice 5: Don't know the answer, but that's just what I'm just doing.

[2:12:32] Voice 8: I think I have somewhat of an answer

[2:12:35] Voice 8: that I'm not

[2:12:36] Voice 5: like to hear,

[2:12:36] Voice 8: but it's just that that would,

[2:12:38] Voice 8: the Gambier OCPLE would be the major project,

[2:12:41] Voice 8: and even though it might not be front and center

[2:12:42] Voice 8: in the community in terms of engagement,

[2:12:45] Voice 8: there would be a planner working very hard

[2:12:48] Voice 8: with First Nation, there would be

[2:12:51] Voice 5: drafting a bylaw,

[2:12:51] Voice 5: lot and you know in that process there

[2:12:54] Voice 5: might be also some engagement with the community and it

[2:12:57] Voice 5: would be a collaborative here so it wouldn't be as intensive as we saw this last year with

[2:13:02] Voice 5: community but

[2:13:03] Voice 5: i don't see it as less work yeah

[2:13:06] Voice 6: let's go try yes uh i do have a specific comment

[2:13:17] Voice 5: with respect to the uh keats short long shoreline protection project uh as it stands now what we

[2:13:24] Voice 5: have here is the recommendation that the active and future project list has presented endorsed

[2:13:33] Voice 5: uh we've already touched on the thurman b thing we're gonna have to develop that um in some

[2:13:40] Voice 5: discussion today i think in terms of reference there but before we get to that i do want to talk

[2:13:44] Voice 5: about shoreline protection project um former trustee rogers was correct to state that my

[2:13:51] Voice 5: My orientation, the Adams Trust, is itself a work of progress.

[2:13:58] Voice 5: And with respect to the Shoreline Protection Project, I certainly understand the purpose of the project.

[2:14:03] Voice 5: I'm familiar with a good deal of history, but I can't say I'm satisfied that I understand the underlying scientific justification for the proposed changes to the existing OCP and development of biologics.

[2:14:21] Voice 5: That's something that not just me, but myself and the public on Keech Island need to be

[2:14:29] Voice 5: satisfied about before the draft school public hearing, because that's something that's been

[2:14:34] Voice 5: outstanding for the community for quite some time.

[2:14:38] Voice 5: And there is some information related to it, and we touched on it before in terms of there

[2:14:42] Voice 5: being general information, but I haven't found anything particularly specific on the project

[2:14:50] Voice 5: page, and

[2:14:54] Voice 5: so that's one issue.

[2:14:56] Voice 5: It's part of that for the moment, but what

[2:14:57] Voice 5: we do about that.

[2:15:00] Voice 5: Then we have

[2:15:02] Voice 5: the fact that

[2:15:04] Voice 5: there's no, you know,

[2:15:07] Voice 5: you shouldn't pussyfoot around

[2:15:09] Voice 5: describing the situation for what it is.

[2:15:11] Voice 5: This initiative has provoked

[2:15:12] Voice 5: a lot of resistance

[2:15:15] Voice 5: from kids' residents,

[2:15:16] Voice 5: and

[2:15:19] Voice 5: as I said

[2:15:22] Voice 5: in other contexts, it'd be

[2:15:24] Voice 5: a mistake to dismiss the opposing views as coming from people who are misinformed or the pro

[2:15:31] Voice 5: development or their indifferent environmental protection uh or you know it's just the even

[2:15:38] Voice 5: unwashed masks that's not what's going on and for the most part opposition comes from people who

[2:15:44] Voice 5: have a long history of good stewardship on that island who happen to have a different opinion of

[2:15:48] Voice 5: where kids needs to preserve special character now whether they're right or not is an open question

[2:15:57] Voice 5: but they are entitled to ask hard questions and expect to get answers to them um and unfortunately

[2:16:03] Voice 5: that's not what happened last year we had a community information meeting that was originally

[2:16:09] Voice 5: scheduled to take place at king's camp it was canceled and that was supposed to be an in-person

[2:16:17] Voice 5: meeting and

[2:16:18] Voice 4: then a highly with the substitute for the community information stage of this process

[2:16:23] Voice 4: was an abbreviated and rushed virtual version that was tacked on uh at the end or took place

[2:16:32] after the ltc september meeting and at that

[2:16:37] Voice 5: meeting before the community information took

[2:16:39] Voice 5: place the draft bylaws i believe were given a second meeting staff was directed to schedule

[2:16:43] Voice 5: public language um

[2:16:46] Voice 6: and i don't my own view is

[2:16:53] Voice 5: that's not appropriate because the community

[2:16:55] Voice 5: information opportunity that should have been given to people at pizza island really was

[2:17:01] Voice 5: substantively it wasn't delivered i think folks are entitled to have a community information

[2:17:06] Voice 5: hearing or a meeting sorry where they ask questions and there is a proper exchange

[2:17:14] change the back and forth between members

[2:17:17] Voice 5: of the public and the LTC and staff on this

[2:17:22] Voice 5: issue I was going to say controversial issue I don't want to overstate it but there is some

[2:17:26] Voice 5: controversy and that's one aspect of it and I do know one of the things that will come up

[2:17:32] Voice 5: that can be information being almost certainly is this issue about the science and I appreciate

[2:17:38] Voice 5: that we have some limitations about what we can say about that there's some discussion about that

[2:17:44] Voice 5: have before but

[2:17:44] Voice 4: that's precisely the kind of thing that needs

[2:17:47] Voice 4: to come up with community information

[2:17:48] Voice 4: meaning if we don't have

[2:17:49] Voice 5: the science that's specific to keats then people are entitled to

[2:17:54] Voice 5: know that the science that we do have they're entitled to have that as well and if at all

[2:18:02] Voice 5: possible i'd like to see before that community in each meeting that we should have i'd like to

[2:18:10] Voice 5: see it in step air concordance that correlates each proposed change to the ocp in the bylaw

[2:18:17] Voice 5: and development bylaw just identifies what's different from what is currently existing and

[2:18:25] Voice 5: explains to whatever extent is possible the underlying scientific rationale for it

[2:18:32] Voice 5: if there isn't one say so if one is generic say so the specific season

[2:18:38] Voice 5: so that gives the public the information they need to properly deliver it on this proposal as

[2:18:48] Voice 5: opposed to let's be honest often people simply react

[2:18:52] Voice 4: you

[2:18:53] Voice 5: know negatively because it's something

[2:18:54] Voice 5: new and they don't understand it if people are going to reject it they should reject it or approve

[2:19:01] Voice 5: it on the basis of actually understanding it that's the direction i'm going so with all of that

[2:19:08] Voice 5: and by way of introduction what i'd like to do is i'd ask this committee that instead of

[2:19:17] you know basically to pull back from the previous direction that we gave staff to schedule public

[2:19:24] hearings i i think i would ask that

[2:19:28] Voice 5: uh that be provoked and instead that we schedule

[2:19:32] Voice 5: like community information and the staff be directed to do that

[2:19:37] Voice 5: and as part of that prior to that to prepare the importance that i just mentioned before

[2:19:46] Voice 5: so i am new here i'm not sure whether i should propose a motion now or whether we should be

[2:19:51] Voice 5: discussing this issue or how we should proceed and the chair's hands on technically what we

[2:19:58] Voice 5: should do next so we're about to capture that the moment here certainly there's an opportunity to

[2:20:05] Voice 5: make a bylaw to rescind the request to a public hearing. But I think I don't have a full understanding of the events that have led up to it. And I think about process advancing and it's always opportunities and all that kind of stuff. But I want to hear from KQE's with respect to the suggestion that we just made about rescinding the request to schedule a public hearing and indeed schedule a community commission.

[2:20:36] Voice 5: um i understand and certainly consider that another information could be held

[2:20:46] Voice 6: do

[2:20:48] Voice 5: recognize that

[2:20:49] Voice 6: i have the three

[2:20:53] Voice 5: but at least already five information needs for this particular

[2:20:58] Voice 5: project and um each time i i feel like the local justice community has heard issues and responded

[2:21:08] Voice 5: to the best of their ability by adjusting the proposed bylaws accordingly.

[2:21:16] Voice 5: But I still think if that is what your touch on the community is, I certainly don't mind.

[2:21:26] Voice 5: Another community that I do have concerns about is this focus on science.

[2:21:31] Voice 5: focus on

[2:21:32] Voice 5: science because I don't think it's really about science there may be some scientific facts

[2:21:39] Voice 5: but there's other things involved with this and then it might not science it might be best

[2:21:47] Voice 5: and so if you want a reference to where those come from that's not science but that's that's

[2:21:54] Voice 5: other expertise that relates to the rationale for why certain things are being put in place,

[2:22:03] Voice 5: because I

[2:22:04] Voice 5: really see a

[2:22:05] Voice 5: danger of the battle of the scientists. And that's what happened on

[2:22:11] Voice 5: Passage Island, and it went on forever, where we had biologists battling it out on whether

[2:22:18] Voice 5: fish could or could not go off a particular stream, and that went on for three years.

[2:22:23] Voice 5: both sides equally qualified, both sides equally additively. So if we could broaden

[2:22:33] Voice 5: that request to very specific rationales to go from there. So for instance, I was to say we're

[2:22:43] Voice 5: talking about why we're having a DPA for shoreline. It's the latest understanding about sea level

[2:22:53] Voice 5: rise but it also includes what kinds of species are particularly vulnerable in that area and the

[2:22:59] Voice 5: history of stations activities in those areas and so it incorporates the other reasons behind why

[2:23:10] Voice 5: that recognition. I do want to acknowledge that people on peaks care a lot about the climate

[2:23:18] Voice 5: and the long-term ecological development of the area.

[2:23:25] Voice 5: And how I've been explaining it to people

[2:23:28] Voice 5: who need information, it's not about them.

[2:23:32] Voice 5: It's about their neighbor who may not be in the same.

[2:23:36] Voice 5: And would then have the ability, by lack of regulation,

[2:23:41] Voice 5: to do quite severe damage to a neighborhood.

[2:23:45] Voice 5: for. So I

[2:23:48] Voice 5: always sort of, these guys

[2:23:50] Voice 5: that come to the meeting, they're great.

[2:23:52] Voice 5: These people that don't come to the meeting,

[2:23:53] Voice 5: don't engage, and

[2:23:56] Voice 5: perform fairly heinous

[2:23:58] Voice 5: acts on there, for sure.

[2:24:00] Voice 5: Those are the ones for, and

[2:24:03] Voice 5: you don't want to get them to run

[2:24:05] Voice 5: roughshod over

[2:24:09] Voice 5: So that's sort of

[2:24:10] Voice 5: my bigger perspective,

[2:24:12] Voice 5: but by all means,

[2:24:14] Voice 5: if you

[2:24:15] Voice 6: need, you should

[2:24:16] Voice 6: with

[2:24:17] Voice 5: some more specific rationale to help.

[2:24:21] Voice 5: Well, thank you for that, because you've heard me.

[2:24:25] Voice 5: I do think it's necessary.

[2:24:27] Voice 5: I appreciate that the rationale for the bylaw changes

[2:24:35] Voice 5: isn't necessarily exclusively scientific,

[2:24:41] Voice 5: but the angle at which many residents in Quintana

[2:24:46] Voice 5: and the way they're looking at it

[2:24:49] Voice 5: is they want to know what the science is and the value of having uh this community information

[2:24:57] Voice 5: i appreciate there's been other meetings but they've been at different stages we're now at

[2:25:03] Voice 5: the stage where this has gone to second meeting it's gathering momentum to move on to the next

[2:25:10] Voice 5: stage and to become the bible at different stages people got different concerns the closer you get

[2:25:16] Voice 5: to judgment day frankly people start to wake up and so that's a factor and so uh some points you

[2:25:26] Voice 5: brought up uh look into nuances of it in defense of the proposal those are exactly the kind of

[2:25:36] Voice 5: things that should come up with the community information but it's one thing for you to tell

[2:25:39] Voice 5: me that the things that you're saying are what the public needs to hear from the trustees like

[2:25:47] Voice 5: when you've got, for example,

[2:25:49] Voice 5: if you have a community information meeting

[2:25:50] Voice 5: and somebody puts everything on

[2:25:51] Voice 5: about some scientific aspect

[2:25:52] Voice 5: about eelgrass, why we're wrong,

[2:25:57] Voice 5: it's for us to say,

[2:25:58] Voice 5: okay, we've got that point,

[2:25:59] Voice 5: but there's a sort of point too, right?

[2:26:02] Voice 5: That kind of activity.

[2:26:03] Voice 5: I mean, that's one of the values

[2:26:04] Voice 5: of the community information meeting

[2:26:07] Voice 5: because when you do step away

[2:26:10] Voice 5: from the objective scientific justification

[2:26:16] Voice 5: for an amendment,

[2:26:17] Voice 5: unamended you're then into a much more amorphous policy discussion about values about what people

[2:26:28] Voice 5: think is important in a more general way than just trying to alleviate a risk on a scientific

[2:26:37] Voice 5: basis you know if you can identify like the strongest argument in favor of bringing in

[2:26:43] Voice 5: protective measures is evidence that they're necessary that's the best argument when you

[2:26:49] Voice 5: move away from that then you're into frankly looser policy dark talk where

[2:26:54] Voice 4: people are entitled

[2:26:55] Voice 4: to have all sorts of opinions and i'll

[2:26:59] Voice 5: be honest for me

[2:26:59] Voice 4: that's where it starts getting quite a bit

[2:27:01] Voice 4: more difficult because

[2:27:02] Voice 5: uh that's at

[2:27:05] Voice 4: the level where the democracy part of this starts to make

[2:27:10] a great deal

[2:27:11] Voice 4: of difference if a proposal can't be defended on its scientific

[2:27:15] Voice 5: objectively scientific merits the will of the people on the island starts which is always

[2:27:24] Voice 5: important starts to get increased importance relative to these other concerns depending

[2:27:29] Voice 5: what those concerns are and community information meeting and then later public hearing that's when

[2:27:37] Voice 5: they get aired out and eventually you get to make that decision so uh i hear you i agree with you

[2:27:43] Voice 5: the scientific rationale isn't the only one but it's an important one yeah and just to respond

[2:27:49] Voice 5: we have had this conversation that community information that really did

[2:27:53] Voice 5: the last one was here it was terrifying because there were way too many people packed in there

[2:28:02] Voice 5: the forward regulations but we left them on anyway and um we had a really good

[2:28:09] Voice 5: back and forth and explaining how regulations work and that they're not the good they're the

[2:28:16] Voice 5: bad people down the road um and that impact is is massive potential um but i totally find

[2:28:27] Voice 5: going through that again i'm more than happy to to stand up and respond well thank you for that

[2:28:35] Voice 5: And what I'm hearing is I should look forward to the resolution.

[2:28:40] Voice 5: And just before we move

[2:28:42] Voice 4: to that, I realize that, because in the sense of the conversation, it's a good conversation.

[2:28:46] Voice 4: And you've got OPC in a place where you're open to hearing more, and that's always a good thing.

[2:28:52] Voice 4: And indeed,

[2:28:53] Voice 5: this is kind of like a check-in, really.

[2:28:54] Voice 5: I think it's an opportunity for a check-in with the LCC in membership to once again go through that and staff to reiterate,

[2:29:02] Voice 4: present that message about what, you know,

[2:29:05] Voice 4: Now, I'm really a fuss about the difference between

[2:29:09] Voice 5: a community information meeting and a public hearing.

[2:29:11] Voice 5: They're very different.

[2:29:12] Voice 5: And a community information meeting, in my mind, is not the same.

[2:29:15] Voice 5: This is what we intend.

[2:29:17] Voice 5: Do you understand it?

[2:29:19] Voice 5: And

[2:29:20] Voice 4: then, indeed, the science questions come in there.

[2:29:22] Voice 4: Certainly, some people want more science or don't believe in science.

[2:29:27] Voice 4: But if it's science, it's science, and we believe it.

[2:29:29] Voice 4: And we have to use that as our backstop kind of thing.

[2:29:32] Voice 4: But what I realized in listening to the conversation is, and indeed, I really like what you said there, Joe, about that when you said judgment day, I think, don't look at my choice of words, but anyway, when that gets closer, this is real.

[2:29:47] Voice 4: Indeed, people's interest is piqued.

[2:29:49] Voice 4: We are at that moment.

[2:29:51] Voice 4: And so you don't actually need to cancel the public hearing.

[2:29:55] Voice 4: You need to schedule a community information meeting prior to the public hearing.

[2:30:00] Voice 4: and continue because then that's your clear message we're serious and it's speak now forever

[2:30:06] Voice 4: so i would suggest that uh they

[2:30:12] Voice 5: staff are already under the direct schedule public

[2:30:15] Voice 4: opinion so that

[2:30:15] Voice 4: will happen and indeed you can ask for scheduling a community information meeting prior to public

[2:30:20] Voice 4: hearing and that could be the same day it could be up to different days whatever however you want to

[2:30:24] Voice 4: do it um but just offer you that advice and put us up to

[2:30:28] Voice 5: you absolutely what

[2:30:28] Voice 4: you want to do

[2:30:31] Voice 5: Well, thank you for that.

[2:30:33] Voice 5: You raised an interesting question.

[2:30:36] Voice 5: The bottom line is we amended the third reading.

[2:30:42] Voice 5: Well, sure.

[2:30:43] Voice 5: And, you know, in principle, I mean, what you've described is what should happen, which is the community information here that travels first.

[2:30:51] Voice 5: Then we move on to the next stage.

[2:30:53] Voice 5: Yeah, sure.

[2:30:54] Voice 5: And in fact, you know, if the resolution I offer is going to be let's have it beforehand, sure.

[2:31:00] Voice 5: Sure, but the one thing I want to caution about is it won't do to have a community information meeting

[2:31:06] than 20 minutes later have it scheduled for public hearing or to have it the next day.

[2:31:11] Voice 4: I mean, you've got to give people a chance.

[2:31:13] Voice 4: That's just

[2:31:14] Voice 5: what comes out of that community information meeting.

[2:31:16] Voice 5: And to figure out what submissions, if any, they want to make publicly.

[2:31:21] Voice 5: And I would follow that.

[2:31:22] Voice 5: I don't know how deep.

[2:31:25] Voice 5: Maybe we satisfy everybody's community information hearing, and that's the end of it.

[2:31:29] Voice 5: It's a race ahead.

[2:31:30] Voice 5: I mean, I

[2:31:31] Voice 5: wouldn't count on it, but I do want to make, you know, so I don't object to the

[2:31:37] Voice 5: idea of, sure, you know, so long as we have a community commission, we go ahead and schedule

[2:31:42] Voice 5: a public hearing for a later time, so long as it's quite a few months later so that people

[2:31:48] Voice 5: have got an opportunity to locate

[2:31:49] Voice 4: our community commission.

[2:31:52] Voice 5: And to the chair, I think also it's important to recognize that you are a company, because

[2:31:58] Voice 5: you're going to be making a decision along with Peter and I that you are comfortable that you may

[2:32:05] Voice 5: not get a hundred percent um you know you won't get a hundred percent um buy it to any proposal

[2:32:14] Voice 5: you're putting in even if you said okay we're dropping the whole thing now back to normal you

[2:32:19] Voice 5: still won't get so you will have some pretty hard questions to respond to so I think that has to do

[2:32:27] Voice 5: where the comfort level is,

[2:32:32] Voice 5: is feeling that you're representing

[2:32:34] Voice 5: well enough in a decision

[2:32:37] Voice 5: for everything that you will be doing.

[2:32:42] Voice 5: Well, that's fair enough.

[2:32:44] Voice 5: And I think you're right.

[2:32:46] Voice 5: I think it's unrealistic to expect

[2:32:47] Voice 5: that there's going to be

[2:32:48] Voice 5: close uniform consensus

[2:32:50] Voice 5: at the end of the process.

[2:32:51] Voice 5: That's probably not going to happen.

[2:32:57] Voice 5: There is, though,

[2:32:59] Voice 5: just to,

[2:33:01] Voice 5: and the interest has just been

[2:33:02] Voice 5: upfront about this

[2:33:05] Voice 5: there is

[2:33:06] Voice 5: in my mind an open question

[2:33:07] Voice 5: about what

[2:33:09] Voice 5: do I do and what do we do

[2:33:12] Voice 5: does any trust committee do

[2:33:14] Voice 5: when it's proposing

[2:33:16] Voice 5: something

[2:33:19] Voice 5: that isn't

[2:33:21] Voice 5: simply a matter of some people

[2:33:22] Voice 5: opposed to some people supported

[2:33:25] Voice 5: it's that what if there's

[2:33:27] Voice 5: a really clear majority

[2:33:28] Voice 5: that just doesn't want

[2:33:30] Voice 5: then it gets

[2:33:33] Voice 5: You know, yes, we're required to exercise the best judgment, but that's a factor in the exercise of your best judgment.

[2:33:42] Voice 5: It's a consideration. I'm

[2:33:44] Voice 4: not saying that's the case, but I'm just, there's nothing

[2:33:48] Voice 5: we can do about it now.

[2:33:49] Voice 5: But

[2:33:49] Voice 4: it's, and

[2:33:52] Voice 5: in fact, I think that's an issue that we face on the Islands Trust and on all the local trust committees that goes beyond this one issue,

[2:34:00] Voice 5: which is we can have all the great ideas we want and we can have all the opinions that we have that

[2:34:08] Voice 5: we think that we know better but there is a limit at some point about how much we're entitled in a

[2:34:17] Voice 5: democracy to impose our views on other people just because we happen to have these decisions

[2:34:27] Voice 5: I would be willing to look at that, because this is what we do, but I don't know why.

[2:34:37] Voice 5: I want to be clear, I'm not saying that's what we're at right now.

[2:34:42] Voice 5: What I'm anticipating is a possibility that after we go through some more of this process,

[2:34:50] We

[2:34:51] Voice 5: may well find ourselves faced with substantial resistance.

[2:34:58] Voice 5: I will be completely honest. I'm not sure what to do with it.

[2:35:02] Voice 5: You know, I'm not sure how to deal with that.

[2:35:05] Voice 5: If I reach the conclusion that this actually is a bylaw that has, you know, real merit to it and the time is right for it.

[2:35:13] Voice 5: And then I'm also facing a community that doesn't want it.

[2:35:19] Voice 5: uh

[2:35:20] Voice 6: that's not something we can just wave

[2:35:23] Voice 5: away in some facile fashion saying oh well we're here to

[2:35:28] Voice 5: exercise our best judgment we know better here you go that's um that's that wouldn't be a responsible

[2:35:35] Voice 5: thing really what i'm saying with too many words is this could be a very hard decision

[2:35:44] Voice 5: so uh in terms of going back to this business of scheduling community information hearing

[2:35:51] hearing and then public hearing later. Before I start fumbling around with a resolution

[2:35:58] to that, perhaps I could call on staff for what

[2:36:02] Voice 5: insight they may have about the feasibility

[2:36:07] Voice 5: of maintaining the idea of scheduling public hearing, but scheduling community hearing,

[2:36:12] Voice 5: information hearing beforehand. How do we stick handle that? What do you think?

[2:36:19] Voice 5: do you mean scheduling the

[2:36:20] Voice 8: community information immediately prior to the public hearing or a month

[2:36:26] Voice 5: no no i just first of all i hope i was clear uh no it shouldn't happen right away afterwards

[2:36:32] Voice 5: and it shouldn't happen a month afterwards it should be at least some months later give

[2:36:35] Voice 5: people a chance to come up with a proper submission for public hearing there may be

[2:36:42] Voice 5: people in public that will submit their own reports so they need a chance to do that community

[2:36:51] Voice 5: information so what's the best course of action you've heard the chair has recommended or suggested

[2:36:55] the possibility of scheduled

[2:36:57] Voice 5: community information hearing and then follow up the scheduling public

[2:37:02] Voice 5: hearing or should we just schedule community information hearing and then have another LTC

[2:37:07] Voice 5: see where we scheduled the other one I'm not quite sure what I'm asking for is your input on the

[2:37:14] Voice 5: logistical side about what's feasible you know in terms of time yeah

[2:37:19] Voice 8: I guess there's there's timing

[2:37:20] Voice 8: there's budget um there's you know we have had a number of media information meetings the last

[2:37:29] being September 15th which was a standard

[2:37:31] Voice 8: community information meeting for two hours

[2:37:35] Voice 8: hours in the evening. And so yes, the one was canceled. That was in-person COVID outbreak

[2:37:39] Voice 8: that we scheduled. And so we can hold another one. I don't know whether it would be online

[2:37:47] Voice 8: or in-person or what you're sort of thinking around that. And then just one other consideration

[2:37:53] Voice 8: is the more we stretch out this project, it is taking the space of a project on your project

[2:38:01] Voice 5: the project lift and if i made through the chair currently sitting in the the amendment process

[2:38:09] Voice 5: at public hearing so it'd be good to understand what the trustees would like to

[2:38:17] Voice 5: have as a result of the information meeting with the community if it will drive changes

[2:38:21] Voice 5: to the amendment we have to think about what that information is and would we have to

[2:38:28] Voice 5: call second reading in this legislative process to make sure it's going carefully

[2:38:35] Voice 5: so if there's a an appetite to tweak some of these or change any of the proposed draft bylaw

[2:38:47] Voice 5: before how much of that and that's also considered where we're at so that might

[2:38:56] Voice 5: that the trustees elevate this right well that's uh that's a really important point we can map that

[2:39:11] Voice 6: out yeah that's

[2:39:12] Voice 5: really important well

[2:39:17] Voice 6: what i'm hearing is just logistically the thing to do is

[2:39:21] Voice 6: to rescind the public hearing have the community information then whatever comes out of it deal

[2:39:28] Voice 5: with it and as

[2:39:29] Voice 4: part of getting that then we'll be able to know whether or not we're doing some

[2:39:33] Voice 4: tweaks changes and that will give us a better sense of when we should schedule the public hearing

[2:39:39] Voice 5: is that fair that's an option if you anticipate the changes that might elevate it in terms of

[2:39:47] Voice 5: time and space to do what um i was saying perhaps a project but before the final project

[2:40:12] Voice 5: It's time sensitive to a certain extent, but this particular project isn't responding

[2:40:21] Voice 5: to an emergency situation.

[2:40:23] Voice 5: It's a slowly evolving scenario that is unidentifiable because we are scheduled to have an in-person

[2:40:34] Voice 5: meeting in the summer those are always because always a good time to have a information meeting

[2:40:42] Voice 5: in person on the app we haven't had one for a while the last meeting we had was right here so

[2:40:49] Voice 5: this provides the opportunity to have the meeting we should have had last summer but we couldn't

[2:40:54] Voice 5: because of the situation couldn't we have the community information where our summer keeps

[2:41:01] Voice 5: speed and then schedule the hearing for late in the year for january is there a reason why

[2:41:10] Voice 5: other than we want to cut this project or we want to complete a project

[2:41:14] Voice 5: it's the reason why has he done this the money that we have allotted for the public hearing

[2:41:25] Voice 6: okay other things we can do so

[2:41:30] Voice 6: i'm

[2:41:31] Voice 7: sorry i'm sorry

[2:41:32] Voice 7: So, I

[2:41:33] Voice 5: mean, unless there is a really specific reason why this project needs to be completed over a month, put the budget aside for a second.

[2:41:46] Voice 5: Is there a reason why this has to be completed in this budget year?

[2:41:51] Voice 5: Is there a way we can slow it down?

[2:41:54] Voice 5: Because there is push and pull.

[2:41:58] Voice 5: I'm not sure we're ever going to get to 100% comfortable.

[2:42:02] Voice 5: okay but that's okay i mean we do need to acknowledge the process of this um

[2:42:09] Voice 5: and then that gives us a little room to do something uh related to that uh trustee

[2:42:16] Voice 5: stamper is saying um i think there's a a question here i can say i think i know where she's going

[2:42:24] Voice 5: with this which is folks in pharma bb to get their issue resolved that's more impressive

[2:42:29] Voice 5: well it needs to be started yes let's say it's going to be resolved right here

[2:42:33] Voice 5: uh the question is uh we know the gambier project that's a major project and that's being funded

[2:42:40] Voice 5: that's going to end because it's about to pass us inside

[2:42:43] Voice 5: yeah we've got it

[2:42:45] Voice 5: mr financial plan

[2:42:47] Voice 6: you're going

[2:42:48] Voice 5: to get through that that's right this is why you should remember my

[2:42:52] Voice 5: name yesterday is sir okay it'll do in that short time okay foolishness aside um which is very hard

[2:43:03] Voice 5: for me to put aside um the uh how much i should know the answer to this but how much have has

[2:43:11] been set aside for the in the budget for the shoreline project and if we have the community

[2:43:17] information is that essentially going to gobble up the clients that have been set aside publicly

[2:43:22] Voice 8: it depends what you want your community information to look like if it was a community

[2:43:26] Voice 8: information meeting piggybacking on the Keats LTC meeting then it's not

[2:43:33] Voice 8: likely to use up a lot of funds because we're already renting the space and the

[2:43:38] Voice 8: staff will already be there so you don't have to count for trouble I think. If you want it as a

[2:43:43] Voice 8: standalone meeting at a different time then you need a room rental and then yes

[2:43:49] Voice 8: it would probably. If it's here,

[2:43:50] Voice 5: I have to stay overnight. Results and applications.

[2:43:53] Voice 5: And if I

[2:43:55] Voice 4: can clarify, get a clarification, Trustee Stamford, were you contemplating

[2:44:01] Voice 5: that we'd be holding the LTC meeting on

[2:44:09] Voice 4: Keats Island and that's where we'd have the community information meeting?

[2:44:12] Voice 4: there. So if we piggyback

[2:44:14] Voice 4: the

[2:44:16] Voice 4: community probation meeting

[2:44:19] Voice 5: as part of that

[2:44:20] Voice 5: and make sure that we set it up

[2:44:23] Voice 5: enough time

[2:44:24] Voice 4: for people to

[2:44:24] Voice 4: it was in person

[2:44:27] Voice 4: that should satisfy

[2:44:29] Voice 4: that and maybe save

[2:44:31] Voice 5: some funds that we might be able

[2:44:33] Voice 5: to redirect in the

[2:44:35] Voice 5: far right direction. Is that where we're going?

[2:44:37] Voice 5: Well that's what I'm trying to

[2:44:39] Voice 5: find a fix to what I see

[2:44:41] Voice 5: is coming

[2:44:43] Voice 5: of no emergency situation yeah and acknowledge that we need to come to an end yeah keith's

[2:44:51] Voice 5: project and then also on wiggling through yeah i can't have your little piece of this

[2:44:57] Voice 5: and you know others could be chiming in i'm very pragmatic and like to see things happen

[2:45:07] Voice 5: stuff like that but the

[2:45:10] Voice 4: good reason we get this done is to get it done so that we can

[2:45:16] Voice 4: get on the other side

[2:45:16] Voice 4: and indeed there's lots of criticism about how long it takes for the office

[2:45:20] Voice 4: just to do things and some of that it does take a long time and it's not necessarily a fault that

[2:45:26] Voice 4: we own except that the frequency of meeting schedules we have is so limited like it takes

[2:45:31] Voice 4: months for us to come around to having another meeting and it's just the nature of the future

[2:45:37] Voice 4: but i just want to remind you that and then of course you absolutely now in this conversation

[2:45:42] Voice 4: Even before you put another motion on the table, you really want to talk about what your priorities are.

[2:45:46] Voice 4: And are we talking about shuffling some kind of priorities?

[2:45:49] Voice 4: So another reason to get this off is so that it makes space for another priority other than deferring things.

[2:45:55] Voice 4: And quite honestly, if you talk about a meeting in the summer and then a decision in the fall in this topic, which people are tuned into, I'm presuming, you want to capture the moment.

[2:46:06] Voice 4: Because otherwise, and that's what I was sort of saying, and I agree completely.

[2:46:11] Voice 4: don't do community information public hearing the same day is a month enough is two months enough

[2:46:17] Voice 4: um because you want to maintain the the opportunity at the moment um because otherwise

[2:46:25] Voice 4: people don't take it seriously and and they will forget about it and put it off and summertime is

[2:46:30] Voice 4: just a bad time for anybody to make any kind of decision making well i can interject on that

[2:46:35] Voice 4: i can

[2:46:36] Voice 5: tell you with respect

[2:46:36] Voice 5: to this project the summer is not going to be a problem because that's

[2:46:41] Voice 5: when the most people are going to be on the island good and it'll come uh i'm pretty sure it will

[2:46:47] come prepared excellent and that's also at that meeting at the community information meeting

[2:46:55] that's also the time among others that is too important okay this is it you know this is the

[2:47:00] last time you're going to get happy this is back and forth because the next stage is you're going

[2:47:06] If you've got something to say, you can say it in a public hearing.

[2:47:10] We're not really going to respond.

[2:47:12] Voice 4: This is your chance to formally put stuff on record.

[2:47:14] Voice 4: It's your last shot, basically.

[2:47:17] Voice 4: And,

[2:47:18] Voice 1: you know, we can get that message across.

[2:47:19] Voice 4: Just for clarity, though, community information meeting is much more of a one-sided conversation than a discussion.

[2:47:27] Voice 4: Public hearing is when you go, this sucks, or I have approved.

[2:47:31] Voice 5: And there's still the opportunity to amend it post-public hearing.

[2:47:34] Voice 5: But how our community initiatives have been going with Keats has been great at that.

[2:47:41] Voice 5: It was very valuable, but I do concur that there was a feeling that changed the tone a little bit in the final One Island meetings.

[2:47:57] Voice 5: it was a really good reason for it but the zoom the alternate zoom did not do it it it kind of

[2:48:06] Voice 5: pulls back the feeling that we're trying to not hide anything but didn't sense that maybe

[2:48:12] Voice 5: something was totally above well you're absolutely you're absolutely right the last thing that can

[2:48:18] Voice 5: happen this process is for people to have a suspicion that this thing is just getting real

[2:48:25] Voice 5: So, because I can tell you it's already there. And if, if we

[2:48:31] Voice 4: don't, if we're not sensitive to that, it's just going to anchor.

[2:48:36] Voice 4: So,

[2:48:37] Voice 5: okay, let's get emotional. I'm going to, I'm going to move that the

[2:48:41] Voice 5: I mean, he says help to him. That's my motion. I need to sell that. I'm going to move that

[2:48:51] Voice 5: That the public hearing, the LTC's original request to the public hearing be scheduled for proposed bylaws, numbers 153 and 154 be rescinded.

[2:49:07] Voice 5: and that staff schedule a community information hearing meeting uh information meeting

[2:49:16] Voice 5: regarding those bylaws to

[2:49:26] Voice 6: take place after

[2:49:29] Voice 5: the local trust community meeting

[2:49:31] Voice 5: scheduled for you have a date we have a scheduled date yes but you could say it's

[2:49:38] Voice 5: summer uh in the summer summer uh

[2:49:42] Voice 6: in person catherine did you capture that um oh boy um

[2:49:53] Voice 3: okay my first question is there's a meeting on june 20th and then there's another meeting on

[2:50:01] Voice 3: august 29th so what part of the summer june

[2:50:05] Voice 5: june 20th yes oh

[2:50:07] Voice 3: it's a june 20th so

[2:50:19] Voice 3: The original motion I had that aligned with the staff was that would read that the, okay,

[2:50:36] Voice 6: what I have is that

[2:50:42] Voice 3: the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee requests staff to rescind

[2:50:50] Voice 3: the originally proposed public hearing and request staff to schedule a community

[2:50:56] Voice 3: information meeting in person after the upcoming local trust committee meeting on keats island

[2:51:03] Voice 3: on june 20th

[2:51:06] Voice 5: that's close but we're not requesting it's not

[2:51:10] Voice 3: it's not your exact

[2:51:11] Voice 3: word so but you'll have to break it down for me yeah

[2:51:14] Voice 5: uh uh what

[2:51:18] Voice 4: i'm proposing is that the

[2:51:19] Voice 4: The Gambier Island Local Trust Committee rescinded the scheduling of a public hearing for

[2:51:27] Voice 5: proposed bylaw numbers 153 and 154

[2:51:32] Voice 5: and

[2:51:35] Voice 6: scheduled a community information meeting to take place after the local trust committee meeting

[2:51:49] meeting scheduled to take place in person on

[2:51:55] Voice 6: Keats Island on June 20th 2023. so when you're ready

[2:52:08] Voice 6: Catherine you just read that back that

[2:52:16] Voice 3: the Gambier Island local trust committee requests staff to

[2:52:23] Voice 3: rescind the scheduling that's

[2:52:27] Voice 4: one of the things I objected to before it's not that we're requesting

[2:52:30] Voice 4: the staff now to rescind it we're okay

[2:52:33] Voice 3: okay that the gabriel that the gambier island local trust

[2:52:38] Voice 3: committee rescinds the scheduling of a public hearing on bylaws 153 and 154 and schedules i

[2:52:49] Voice 3: can and and in this case i would ask request staff to schedule yes

[2:52:54] Voice 7: that's fine and

[2:52:56] Voice 3: request staff to

[2:52:57] Voice 3: schedule a community information meeting to take place after the local trust committee

[2:53:01] Voice 3: meeting scheduled to take place on keats island on june 20th 2023 in person

[2:53:08] Voice 4: in person

[2:53:16] Voice 6: did you read that back one more time

[2:53:21] Voice 3: okay um that the gambier island local trust committee

[2:53:29] Voice 3: rescinds the scheduling of a public hearing on bylaws number 153 and 154

[2:53:37] Voice 3: and request staff to schedule a community information meeting

[2:53:42] Voice 3: to take place after the local trust committee meeting

[2:53:47] Voice 3: scheduled to take place on Keats Island

[2:53:50] Voice 3: on June 20th, 2023 in person.

[2:53:55] Voice 5: That's the resolution.

[2:53:57] Voice 5: I second that.

[2:53:59] Voice 5: Okay, moved and seconded.

[2:54:00] Voice 5: Any further discussion?

[2:54:02] Voice 4: All those in favor?

[2:54:03] Voice 4: Carried unanimously.

[2:54:05] Voice 7: Well done.

[2:54:05] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:54:06] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:54:06] Voice 5: would comment thank

[2:54:07] Voice 7: you that

[2:54:08] Voice 5: um people come to this maybe with an open mic and they please don't

[2:54:14] Voice 5: say we're really good stewards of our land we do not need this that's the right

[2:54:21] Voice 5: okay um i'm cognizant of time because i think there's a bunch of people that want to have a

[2:54:31] Voice 5: good question for some direction or some clarity to prepare for the presentation we need to

[2:54:46] Voice 5: understand the same information in brockmore opportunity information we heard or i heard

[2:54:56] Voice 5: jesse talk about uh time banks of the rationale so what does that information look like

[2:55:04] Voice 5: direction so it's here's the mark so that's helpful to help a reminder i think uh what i

[2:55:13] Voice 5: had discussed before and i don't know whether we need

[2:55:15] Voice 4: resolution for this or whether it's

[2:55:17] Voice 4: something that can just be understood is uh what we need is

[2:55:21] Voice 5: some version of that concordance

[2:55:23] Voice 5: that identifies due respect for where trustee stanford is coming from but a concordance that

[2:55:33] Voice 5: specifically identifies the scientific rationale for each

[2:55:37] Voice 6: of the changes that are proposed to the

[2:55:46] Voice 6: existing

[2:55:47] Voice 4: bylaws like we have these new bylaws that are proposed and they're full of different changes

[2:55:53] Voice 4: and each of those changes i'd like to see the rationale for them the scientific rationale for

[2:55:58] Voice 4: them understanding that there's other reasons for these things as well but specifically getting that

[2:56:03] Voice 4: scientific explanation to the extent that it's feasible to the extent that it's feasible oh yes

[2:56:10] Voice 5: how much new research is required to do that it sounds like it's an amount of work

[2:56:18] Voice 8: i've also you know be perfectly honest that i came on to this project after the bylaws had been

[2:56:25] Voice 8: drafted so i've been kind of just carrying it through these last few stages and have amended

[2:56:31] Voice 8: We've amended it a couple of times based on feedback that we received from the information meetings.

[2:56:38] Voice 8: So it does sound like a significant amount of work. Are you looking for a report, a presentation?

[2:56:45] Voice 5: It's just a basically a footnoted version of your bios.

[2:56:49] Voice 5: You know,

[2:56:50] Voice 4: highlight this section. This is new.

[2:56:53] Voice 4: Let's note, this is why we're doing it. We're making this change because

[2:56:57] Voice 5: now you say you think it's a significant amount of work.

[2:57:03] Voice 5: I don't know how to react to that. I'm not being critical because it's like my assumption

[2:57:11] Voice 4: is that science is already there somewhere in the work that's already been done.

[2:57:15] Voice 4: It just hasn't been communicated in the way that

[2:57:19] Voice 5: I think the people in Kitsap need.

[2:57:22] Voice 5: So I'm proposing that we push off into a research project and come up with new science.

[2:57:30] i'm asking that you

[2:57:31] Voice 5: take the work that's already been done the scientific research

[2:57:35] Voice 5: and specifically and correlate it if i'm not mistaken i think we're not asking for a report

[2:57:42] Voice 5: we're asking for a presentation that provides that information to the public through the chair

[2:57:49] Voice 5: think what what is i think we're collectively wondering is to present that information pull it

[2:57:58] Voice 5: a question if it's not if there is some scientific information to support a certain rationale

[2:58:06] Voice 5: that'll just show in the information that we shared with the information session um that could

[2:58:13] Voice 5: then be a next step in terms of like just people that trustees would like to give direction on

[2:58:18] Voice 5: um because i think clarifying is not necessarily driving us to seek out that scientific information

[2:58:25] Voice 5: If it's not there, it's not there, but we're trying to sort of pull it up and call it out

[2:58:31] Voice 5: every day.

[2:58:32] Voice 5: Yeah.

[2:58:32] Voice 5: And where I'm coming from is if it's not there, people will teach all intertitles no.

[2:58:40] Voice 5: I'm just trying to, if I was doing it, again, I'm having trouble with this focus on the

[2:58:45] Voice 5: science.

[2:58:47] Voice 5: Because if I...

[2:58:49] Voice 5: That's the science.

[2:58:50] Voice 5: No, it's not that.

[2:58:52] Voice 5: It's that there are many reasons for why this is changing so much.

[2:58:57] Voice 5: And I understand there's a few specific reasons why some people don't consider C-level illness as an example.

[2:59:06] Voice 5: But I would, if I was coming into this as a resident property owner, as a property owner,

[2:59:15] Voice 5: I would like to see what changes for me, what the reasoning behind those changes,

[2:59:21] Voice 5: just whether it's science or prestations or best practices,

[2:59:26] Voice 5: and then have links to external sources

[2:59:30] Voice 5: that provide the backup for that reason.

[2:59:33] Voice 5: And if that is science,

[2:59:35] Voice 5: it would have to be based through provincial sources,

[2:59:39] Voice 5: which is fairly easy to get out,

[2:59:41] Voice 5: but the information be provided through links.

[2:59:46] Voice 5: So then it's verbatim.

[2:59:48] Voice 5: It's not this feeling that people are reinterpreting information.

[2:59:56] Voice 5: We're not owning that information, but that is objective.

[3:00:00] Voice 5: objectively found in external sources so so it's not us providing the science because i think that's

[3:00:07] Voice 5: part of where the that's the back and forth i remember well where'd you get that from because

[3:00:13] Voice 5: i heard xyz from another source and i'm like you know i can't i can't argue that way well

[3:00:22] Voice 5: it's not it

[3:00:23] Voice 5: actually isn't an argument at this point uh maybe later but um the way i'm looking

[3:00:30] Voice 5: at it is you know I take your point there's other rationales there but really

[3:00:37] Voice 5: those other rationales were in fact at the other community information meetings

[3:00:44] Voice 5: that's really what was front and center those other rationales and you know I'm

[3:00:50] Voice 5: repeating myself but it's just because I'm asking for the science side it

[3:00:54] Voice 5: doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that there's other rationales the

[3:01:00] Voice 5: The point of this is to separate the signal from the noise on the science side, just so people know what the science is.

[3:01:06] Voice 5: Because there's been a lot of demand on Keats Island that that's what they want to know.

[3:01:11] Voice 5: There's other reasons that we may have for it.

[3:01:15] Voice 5: That's fine.

[3:01:15] Voice 5: We've told people those reasons before.

[3:01:18] And for some people, it's persuasive.

[3:01:21] For others, it's not.

[3:01:22] But my

[3:01:25] Voice 4: understanding of it is the science side is the

[3:01:30] Voice 5: most prominent thing that's of concern.

[3:01:33] Voice 5: That's why I wanted to explain it. And if we don't have an explanation, a scientific explanation for making the change,

[3:01:40] Voice 5: again, I repeat myself, people are entitled to be doing it as a result of some other policy reason.

[3:01:49] Voice 5: Yeah, I think we are more or less saying the same thing, but what I wouldn't want, I mean,

[3:01:54] Voice 5: you say we can't own it. In perspective, we have to disagree. We had better own it,

[3:01:59] Voice 5: because the science, if we're justifying a thing, like we don't have to justify anything we do on

[3:02:08] Voice 5: the basis of science. We can just say we're doing it because we think it's a good idea, blah, blah,

[3:02:12] Voice 5: but if we're offering science at all then we have to stand behind it, right?

[3:02:20] Voice 5: Yeah, I understand, but what I was getting from the information meetings that I attended was

[3:02:26] Voice 5: they didn't trust our interpretation of that data. They wanted to see where it came from and they

[3:02:35] Voice 5: wanted to see the thing. So I think it would be easier and more straightforward if you provided

[3:02:40] Voice 5: at all that, provide direct access to material? Sure, whatever the science is that we're relying

[3:02:48] Voice 5: on, point the

[3:02:49] Voice 4: arrow in that

[3:02:50] Voice 5: direction. That's fine, sure, we're saying the same thing. So I

[3:02:53] Voice 5: think we should move on because I think we could debate this for a long time, but I think that

[3:02:57] Voice 5: what's key here is let's get a presentation, let's get the science that's behind the decisions that

[3:03:02] Voice 5: we're making, and the beauty here, I

[3:03:04] Voice 4: think, will be is if there's gaps in it, then let's build the

[3:03:07] Voice 4: gaps or at least be cognizant of this gap so that the islanders aren't

[3:03:12] Voice 5: asking us to fill the gaps

[3:03:14] Voice 5: that we already know those exist and we have a rationale for why they exist so um and i'm hoping

[3:03:20] Voice 5: that captures what you need to prepare for this public this community yeah sorry mr chair sorry

[3:03:26] Voice 5: for just one small point just it could be as simple as a presentation that has a the current

[3:03:32] Voice 5: craft that's simply energy that has you can do that you have to be okay um

[3:03:43] Voice 4: so back to the

[3:03:44] Voice 4: active and future projects we've talked about two things here i think at this point obviously

[3:03:50] Voice 4: you've got all

[3:03:51] Voice 5: of the other um activities there and i think there's certainly folks in the

[3:03:55] Voice 5: audience so they're interested in how we're going to prioritize things and i'm also interested in

[3:03:59] Voice 5: pushing up through the rest of the meeting here um

[3:04:01] Voice 4: so what do you want to do about the other items

[3:04:03] Voice 5: on the uh on the list and what we heard from delegations today so this takes us now we with

[3:04:11] Voice 5: those two resolutions we actually have covered the active projects so we're not looking to future

[3:04:18] Voice 5: ones yes which is a long list should we should we deal with the foreign first and then deal with the

[3:04:25] Voice 5: rest of them that seems to be okay so uh if i may from what we had discussed before um as a

[3:04:39] Voice 5: companion to the standing resolution with respect to on the enforcement side we basically set the

[3:04:46] Voice 5: terms of reference still um pilot approach is that right better go there right okay so

[3:04:55] Voice 5: let's maybe go to staff and say if we want to create a project to address this particular

[3:05:00] Voice 5: issue which is only going to parking this by the moment sorry that's my phone um what do we need to

[3:05:05] Voice 5: do um budget well yeah we need budget so just tell us what in order well it would need a business

[3:05:17] Voice 5: case yes so we need to start working on a business case um and then that would be for the 24 that's

[3:05:28] Voice 5: Yeah, we're

[3:05:29] Voice 5: pretty much done

[3:05:29] Voice 8: for this one.

[3:05:30] Voice 5: So

[3:05:30] Voice 8: I guess where I'm still a little bit confused is if we're stretching the Keats project over into that,

[3:05:39] Voice 8: there will need to be a business case made for the public hearing, presumably, if that's where we're headed.

[3:05:48] Voice 6: I'm serious.

[3:05:50] Voice 5: We've done that.

[3:05:51] Voice 5: We've done this.

[3:05:54] Voice 5: What

[3:05:55] Voice 7: are we moving on to?

[3:05:56] Voice 7: I'm

[3:05:56] Voice 5: confused here now.

[3:05:58] Voice 5: it's how to accommodate the farm and meat program how because that's

[3:06:02] Voice 4: what i'm asking

[3:06:02] Voice 4: what do we have to do to do that and then at the once we know what we have to do to do that then

[3:06:08] Voice 4: we have to know from you how do you want to prioritize it

[3:06:12] Voice 5: and indeed as you've indicated

[3:06:14] Voice 5: that's a 24 24 budget so you know indeed we're going to be launching into that probably by june

[3:06:21] Voice 5: we'll be launching into

[3:06:22] Voice 4: a new budget cycle and obviously you need to decide that that's going

[3:06:25] Voice 4: to be your top priority for 24 25 well that isn't going to satisfy king tides in december 2023 what

[3:06:33] Voice 4: will have to happen is in order for

[3:06:35] Voice 5: this to get traction it will have to get funded yes that

[3:06:40] Voice 5: doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a top priority he just has to get funded right oh but

[3:06:45] Voice 4: yeah so you know we could go off and hold the tangent now we don't want to but as the chair

[3:06:51] Voice 4: of fpc certainly you want it to be a top priority if you're going

[3:06:54] Voice 5: to recommend funding the difficulty

[3:06:56] Voice 5: The difficulty we have here is there's a lot of discussion both at the FPC and at the governance

[3:07:06] Voice 5: committee level that the current practice and process of planning isn't strategic, needs

[3:07:15] Voice 5: to be reformed.

[3:07:17] Voice 5: And so we are in a situation

[3:07:20] Voice 4: of flux where we don't know how we're going to do it, but

[3:07:25] Voice 4: But the idea that somehow we're shackled to the idea

[3:07:28] Voice 4: that you only have two projects, that's arbitrary.

[3:07:32] Voice 5: Things have like the funding that the Islands Trust supports

[3:07:37] Voice 5: for all of these projects needs to be merit-based,

[3:07:42] Voice 5: needs to be more strategic.

[3:07:43] Voice 5: There seems to be quite a bit of consensus

[3:07:44] Voice 5: in the governance committee with respect to that.

[3:07:47] Voice 5: How would that turns out to be in practice?

[3:07:49] Voice 5: We don't know, we've got to figure it out.

[3:07:53] Voice 5: But that's just to say that there's,

[3:07:57] Voice 5: Let's not look at the following budget cycle as necessarily being restrictive to saying that there only need to be these two projects, you know, Gambier keeps four short, and FarmBee is just kind of like waiting for the crumbs.

[3:08:10] Voice 5: That's not necessarily – it's going to be something we have to figure out.

[3:08:17] Voice 5: Well,

[3:08:17] Voice 4: you're right, but my warning is that the spectrum isn't two or more projects for Gambier keeps.

[3:08:24] Voice 4: it's one project again because that's the conversation that's on the table and it's a

[3:08:30] Voice 4: tough conversation so if all we know today is this is the process we have we're already committed to

[3:08:38] 2023 yes

[3:08:39] Voice 4: budget yeah so therefore and in any circumstance you need to build business case

[3:08:44] Voice 4: you need to build whatever it is to get it together you need to decide what right where

[3:08:48] Voice 4: it is on your list and then that goes into the hopper for

[3:08:51] Voice 5: the next cycle whatever that looks like

[3:08:53] Voice 5: right and we can't speak to this strategic one yes we don't speak to in general or we can talk

[3:09:01] Voice 5: to our own strategic planning what's important and it's the big picture and i agree we have to

[3:09:08] Voice 5: look at some strategic and there may be other ways this can be worked into other projects

[3:09:14] Voice 5: That's reaching right. That's right.

[3:09:16] Voice 5: That's what's got, you know, it's, it's unique.

[3:09:22] Voice 5: So I'm going to suggest, right.

[3:09:24] Voice 5: Cause we can talk about this forever.

[3:09:26] Voice 5: I'm going to suggest that we actually got a tip from Marla's here is let's

[3:09:32] Voice 5: ask staff for a business case to develop a business case.

[3:09:36] Voice 5: And does that set within the scope of the work you can do to support the

[3:09:41] Voice 5: LTD?

[3:09:43] Voice 8: So I guess my question would be, are we also developing a business case for the GAM Bureau's

[3:09:47] Voice 8: PLU project? Oh yeah. Right. We have to. Well, so we have one for this, but it would be for the

[3:09:56] Voice 8: next fiscal. This is also the time.

[3:09:59] Voice 4: Well, sure. And that will come to pass. I think what we're

[3:10:03] Voice 4: trying to focus on right now is we've heard from a delegation here today, and due respect to our

[3:10:09] Voice 4: our difficulties we want to acknowledge the seriousness of the nature of the delegation

[3:10:15] Voice 4: and say that's

[3:10:16] Voice 5: what we're going to do but certainly there'll be other business cases that will develop

[3:10:19] Voice 5: when in the normal course of events you come to us and go hey budget 24 25 what do you want to do

[3:10:25] Voice 5: so and you'll say yeah you've already got the sovereignty project in that hopper with your

[3:10:30] business case what else do you want to do and then we go forward that's you said we get one two or

[3:10:35] three projects recorded go ahead

[3:10:36] Voice 5: as kate or sorry as trustee stanford said

[3:10:41] Voice 5: the interpretation of where these projects belong

[3:10:45] Voice 5: is relevant to funding and does our movie project mean well then maybe it's an argument or a

[3:10:52] Voice 5: strategy or a tactic that gets us funding for that it takes it outside the ltc and puts it somewhere

[3:10:58] Voice 5: else we don't know but it's something we know it's a priority so you know we can't decide it today

[3:11:04] Voice 5: but you know we can kind of work it out sure going forward but i'm

[3:11:08] Voice 4: sure i made

[3:11:08] Voice 5: the point the chair has

[3:11:09] Voice 5: made is correct which is regardless we're still going to need business cases for all three of

[3:11:14] Voice 5: these projects because in part those business cases will help us figure out how to get our

[3:11:19] Voice 5: money forward on that and i just gotta tell you and you know open public meetings are a funny

[3:11:25] Voice 5: thing you just

[3:11:25] Voice 4: gotta talk you gotta speak what you think and i'm shocked to find that i'm thinking

[3:11:30] Voice 4: thinking about I wonder if this emergency measures crisis situation associated with loss of millions

[3:11:38] Voice 4: of dollars worth of property value et cetera et cetera et cetera actually doesn't uh potentially

[3:11:45] Voice 4: provide the opportunity for a special tax but you have to say it out loud because we have to

[3:11:52] Voice 4: sort of think out of the box here because how are you going to fix this problem if you don't

[3:11:56] Voice 5: but

[3:11:57] Voice 4: let's get a business motion to ask for a business case that will move us to the next step

[3:12:02] Voice 4: do

[3:12:03] Voice 5: you want to take this are you okay well i'm fascinated to hear a uh a tax increase

[3:12:08] Voice 5: described as a creative option i guess what i'm thinking about you want

[3:12:16] Voice 4: to build a swimming pool

[3:12:17] Voice 5: you got to pay for something that's my idea i think the idea here is we want to have a smaller

[3:12:28] Voice 5: I've frankly lost track a little bit where we're at here but separate from having a business case

[3:12:34] Voice 5: for authority isn't it after what we've heard today isn't it incumbent on us as the LTC to

[3:12:41] at least

[3:12:43] Voice 5: today define the rough outline of what the terms of reference would be

[3:12:47] Voice 5: I think we are in a position to do that. I think we need to look back at the history of this and get a better sense of what it is.

[3:12:57] Voice 5: So how would we, if I may,

[3:12:59] Voice 5: how would we, how would we do that? How would we develop that?

[3:13:04] Voice 5: Practically, so that to give the staff the guidance.

[3:13:06] Voice 5: All I think right now is just starting the business case and then think about how we can go through the minutes and what we've done and the bylaw history on this to get a sense of where, because I'm

[3:13:28] Voice 5: not prepared to do track work.

[3:13:31] Voice 5: And we ask that as part of the development of the business case, that there would be the historical review of what the LTC has asked for in the past and to help define the problem, at least in some rough way.

[3:13:49] Voice 5: Well, I think that will be part of the business case anyway, because I'm really cognizant of the fact that we're jumping over our two allotted projects.

[3:13:56] Voice 5: Jackson were already asking me to do work.

[3:13:59] Voice 5: So I would rather leave that book out, because that will come to pass.

[3:14:03] Voice 5: So I would like to move that the Gambier Trust Committee request staff to provide us a business

[3:14:12] Voice 5: case, a draft business case, regarding Thornby Island Foreshore Protection.

[3:14:23] Voice 5: Thornby Island Foreshore Protection, or pilot project.

[3:14:28] Voice 5: Pilot project, but it's north of.

[3:14:32] Voice 5: I think that, just if I could insist, I've seen it referred to as the Bonneville Islands for shore protection.

[3:14:41] Voice 5: There is only one island.

[3:14:45] Voice 5: Yeah, I just want to, should we ask, since the delegation members are still here, should we ask for any input at this point?

[3:14:54] Voice 5: I don't think we have.

[3:14:55] Voice 5: Okay, I could. I think we need to actually go on.

[3:15:00] Voice 4: But before we go any further, because if you're still, we're in the middle of a motion, it's not a good time to have public intervention. I think it was moved, it was a second.

[3:15:10] Voice 4: But I

[3:15:11] Voice 6: want to ask staff, do we need your terms of reference to go into a business case?

[3:15:21] Voice 6: Project charter?

[3:15:24] Voice 6: Yeah, no, project charter would come after, I think.

[3:15:28] but i'm just wondering if we're asking you to do a business case

[3:15:30] Voice 5: and we haven't actually defined

[3:15:32] Voice 5: what that is because i think the spectrum report is quite large and or quite small depending upon

[3:15:38] Voice 5: how you approach it so but if you think a business case is the way to get this project

[3:15:43] get this started then let's go there i'm happy because

[3:15:47] Voice 5: i'm just asking this question in my head

[3:15:49] Voice 5: to make sure we're going to make sure we start with this because yeah there's so much there is

[3:15:57] Voice 4: Yes. Oh, but you know, the thing there that I go, sure, it's not tobacco, but is that material in coming up with a regulatory solution?

[3:16:07] Voice 4: Because I think that's, I think, what we're looking for, a

[3:16:11] Voice 5: regulatory solution, and I'm not even sure that's what the solution is.

[3:16:17] Voice 5: So you've moved a motion then. I'm happy to continue on with that motion

[3:16:22] Voice 4: to at

[3:16:23] Voice 4: least get staff working on it. It's on the table.

[3:16:25] Voice 4: So moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor then?

[3:16:30] I think I got the nod that we were okay to figure

[3:16:33] Voice 5: this out. Russell?

[3:16:36] Voice 5: Yes.

[3:16:37] Voice 4: All those in favor? So that carries. So now we've done something definitive.

[3:16:40] Voice 4: And we'll see where it goes. So we're going to get a business case. Yeah.

[3:16:44] Voice 5: Now is there, Al's an opportunity, one last brief, is there any brief comment?

[3:16:49] Voice 4: Yeah, so does LTC want to hear from the,

[3:16:51] Voice 5: I'm going to ask you to be really succinct.

[3:16:54] Voice 5: problem there is but um so i greatly appreciate the movements that you're moving in terms of the

[3:16:58] Voice 5: bigger project in the meantime um what i would ask is again as a property owner that was subject

[3:17:06] Voice 5: to erosion um a year ago uh is there a way that while this project is moving forward that we can

[3:17:13] Voice 5: address in an emergency situation if there is a breach of a seawall how we can see because i see

[3:17:19] Voice 5: that the so the emergency part and make application and it would come to a meeting

[3:17:26] Voice 5: yes and in the meantime our properties are are vulnerable yes but you are you are limited

[3:17:35] Voice 5: and for what you can do yeah and i think we have to be careful here it is the word emergency and

[3:17:43] Voice 5: everybody gets nervous we have to define your emergency situation like that

[3:17:47] Voice 5: if you've got a storm or something like that i mean as trustee sanford said before as the chair

[3:17:54] reiterated there is a process which is there is an existing bylaw and if you want to add to the

[3:18:03] seawall or do repairs to it you do need a variance and that's what the structure is

[3:18:09] in an emergency situation

[3:18:11] Voice 4: so you've got a big king tide and big white blood of some sort

[3:18:15] Voice 4: well get that variance in right away and

[3:18:17] Voice 5: it's uh it's probably a good idea to uh you know

[3:18:23] Voice 5: get that to the attention of the staff but also the trustees as fast as possible and if it's

[3:18:27] Voice 5: necessary for us to do something on an emergency basis

[3:18:30] Voice 4: it can be done but you know just on the

[3:18:33] Voice 4: definition of emergency sorry kate but an emergency isn't something that you already

[3:18:38] Voice 4: know is potentially going to happen and guess what it's going to potentially happen right so

[3:18:46] An emergency is something that is completely unexpected.

[3:18:49] I don't think you can

[3:18:50] Voice 4: honestly say that you don't expect the next game time to have some

[3:18:54] Voice 4: potential impact if there's wind,

[3:18:55] Voice 5: and this is the western coast.

[3:18:58] Voice 5: So an example of how this happens in another part of what just came out of Keats Island,

[3:19:03] Voice 5: we have this huge subdivision called DL696.

[3:19:07] Voice 5: Okay, just wait, I'll just let them, it's very quick.

[3:19:15] Voice 5: For years and years and years, there's been a moratorium on any changes to their cabins.

[3:19:20] Voice 5: Their cabins are falling into the ocean.

[3:19:22] Voice 5: Their cabins are dangerous, but there's been no ability for them to maintain or upgrade their cabins.

[3:19:29] Voice 5: But they bring variances up to the cave, and we make changes on a case-by-case basis just so those people can continue using the cabins safely.

[3:19:41] Voice 5: That's the bottom line.

[3:19:42] Voice 5: and then once it's all said and done,

[3:19:44] Voice 5: then they can start doing new things to them.

[3:19:46] Voice 5: But right now they can't,

[3:19:48] Voice 5: haven't been able to for 25 years.

[3:19:51] Voice 5: And the chair did make a strong point,

[3:19:53] Voice 5: which is in the peculiar situation

[3:19:55] that you based on North Farmer Group,

[3:19:59] you have a risk that you can anticipate, right?

[3:20:02] Voice 5: You don't have to wait for something to fall down.

[3:20:04] Voice 5: So you probably would be astute

[3:20:08] Voice 5: to size up the protections you have now.

[3:20:11] Voice 4: And if you anticipate,

[3:20:13] Voice 4: that they may not be sufficient and that improvements are warranted against the risk of another king tide that's bad.

[3:20:21] Voice 4: Get that variance in now.

[3:20:25] Voice 5: And get it in as a group. I don't know how many of you there are, 10 or 12,

[3:20:30] but an engineering study that said this is what we need to do would save

[3:20:36] Voice 5: us a lot of work, to be honest.

[3:20:38] Voice 5: You heard the

[3:20:39] Voice 4: chair, he put his thumb on the scale.

[3:20:42] Voice 4: anyway thank you thank you thank you um and you know i think kate knows me well and i think i say

[3:20:48] Voice 4: i want to move on thank you did

[3:20:51] Voice 5: and then you both chimed in afterwards i know so let's get going

[3:20:56] Voice 5: it's not various but we have anything else we need to do with the active and future project

[3:21:03] Voice 5: i'm happy go ahead nothing else i can see realistically be done next first year

[3:21:09] Voice 5: are you content to move on yes i just have one if there's input required in terms of in terms

[3:21:17] Voice 5: of reference that can't be descended in writing okay so it might be the staff might be good

[3:21:21] Voice 5: i think we're doing a business case at this point yeah yeah that will help

[3:21:28] Voice 5: climate mitigation i doubt it i don't see anything attached here it's just it's a standing um okay

[3:21:33] Voice 5: Okay, Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure, World Standards, and Letter of Agreement for the discussion.

[3:21:40] Voice 5: What was that? Letter of Agreement, right there. That's a big stop.

[3:21:42] Voice 5: I can't really remember why it's out there, but it's got my name on it, and it's what I'm going to do.

[3:21:49] Voice 5: And so I'm not sure. I went looking for the MOU through the chair, through staff.

[3:21:56] Voice 5: I went looking for the MOU, but if I had a copy, and I didn't, but I did.

[3:22:02] Voice 5: So, if I could get anything

[3:22:04] Voice 6: from you, am I

[3:22:06] Voice 6: just going to set

[3:22:08] Voice 6: up a meeting?

[3:22:11] Voice 6: So that's all I can think of.

[3:22:13] Voice 6: Well, we have an email.

[3:22:15] Voice 5: You can ask. That's available on the website, probably.

[3:22:19] Voice 5: Sorry, did the link not work?

[3:22:22] Voice 5: Oh, it's attached. There's a link.

[3:22:25] Voice 5: A letter of units linked.

[3:22:26] Voice 5: And it came from you and sent an email that said you wanted to talk.

[3:22:31] This is a topic of discussion, and it was around the

[3:22:36] Voice 5: SPARCOM situation.

[3:22:40] Voice 5: Okay, okay.

[3:22:41] Voice 5: Yeah, so we thought we could have a more general discussion around the conditions.

[3:22:46] Voice 5: Around subject matter.

[3:22:48] Voice 5: Can we just talk about this at our next meeting?

[3:22:51] Voice 5: I think what we could do is just drop that for now because our

[3:22:57] Voice 5: next Y&M

[3:22:58] Voice 5: is meeting with,

[3:23:00] Voice 5: with not drop it, but table it.

[3:23:04] Voice 5: Our next line on it's meeting is different.

[3:23:07] Voice 5: So we introduce the next else to be a frontrunner

[3:23:09] Voice 5: of government, and I think what I'd like to propose

[3:23:12] Voice 5: is we have a meeting with .

[3:23:16] Voice 5: So then let's have this come back out of the committee.

[3:23:21] Voice 5: Make sure it's been covered, but it's probably

[3:23:24] Voice 5: going to be covered if we get to it.

[3:23:26] Voice 5: That's where we talk about it.

[3:23:29] Voice 5: So the scheduling of the meeting, we'll talk about it.

[3:23:33] Voice 5: Are you sure?

[3:23:34] Voice 5: Oh, let's go.

[3:23:35] Voice 5: We've got another 12.4.

[3:23:38] Voice 5: Talking about we're going to introduce ourselves to the meetings, things like that.

[3:23:45] Voice 5: So I'm going to go to 12.3 then.

[3:23:47] Voice 5: It's just exciting.

[3:23:49] Voice 5: There's a staff report here with recommended dates.

[3:23:51] Voice 5: And I think you committed to the June 20th already.

[3:23:54] Voice 4: And so I guess what I want to know, because that isn't spelled out.

[3:23:59] you have a beautiful taste and stuff. Where, in person, what tonic, and when, and the when is

[3:24:05] probably pretty prescriptive, so forward to you guys

[3:24:07] Voice 5: for what you are thinking here with March 14th,

[3:24:12] June 20th, August 29th. Do you have something? I just will add, so it sounds like you've kind of

[3:24:18] committed

[3:24:18] Voice 8: to the Keats on June 20th and then we would do the Gambier on August. If we could get

[3:24:25] Voice 8: some clarity around start time whether 10 a.m works 10 30 that's two so

[3:24:32] Voice 5: i guess it really

[3:24:32] Voice 5: depends on whether or not we're doing in person or online um the in-person meetings are just so far

[3:24:42] Voice 5: this one is the two of us summer um if we're doing in person uh i can't really start

[3:24:56] Voice 5: unless i stay

[3:24:57] Voice 6: here so you're saying in person june and august um they

[3:25:05] Voice 5: can so yeah

[3:25:08] Voice 5: on island and i'm just thinking keats i think you can start a little bit earlier if you're doing it

[3:25:13] Voice 5: at keats camp just the only place to do it yeah i'm in your hands i have to think you can start

[3:25:22] Voice 5: it you should okay so can we just start all of these well if i may uh with respect

[3:25:31] respect to the June 28th in particular, because we're going to have the community information

[3:25:35] Voice 5: meeting, it's real premium starting it early, keeping the agenda as tight as possible so

[3:25:42] Voice 5: we have as much remote as possible for the information side of it. So starting early

[3:25:47] Voice 5: then makes sense.

[3:25:48] Voice 5: And early is what?

[3:25:50] Voice 5: 10.

[3:25:51] Voice 5: You can't get me.

[3:25:53] Voice 5: I'm sure I'll get that too.

[3:25:54] Voice 7: Okay.

[3:25:56] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:25:57] Voice 5: So 10 o'clock.

[3:25:58] Voice 5: And just-

[3:25:59] Voice 5: A lot of walking on key side.

[3:26:01] Voice 5: A lot of-

[3:26:01] Voice 5: Yeah, I know.

[3:26:02] Voice 5: yeah um and just for clarification in circumstances there are options for traveling directly from

[3:26:09] Voice 5: gabriel to gibson's gabriel yeah okay so you you don't always do it but there are

[3:26:20] Voice 5: boats

[3:26:26] Voice 5: can't go straight over it has been done before but these are options that provide

[3:26:33] Voice 4: if

[3:26:34] Voice 5: you say we're going to be there 10 o'clock on a tuesday

[3:26:36] Voice 5: and i will send them back but it's it's the way back that often

[3:26:42] Voice 5: these meetings are all time anyway i'm just saying operationally there's different options

[3:26:49] Voice 5: okay we're in your hands okay anything else with

[3:26:56] Voice 5: the uh march october november meetings

[3:26:58] Voice 5: to electronic here um i

[3:27:03] Voice 6: think we need to make you so soon i'm i'm okay listen it's not the best

[3:27:09] Voice 6: but it's i'm

[3:27:14] Voice 5: glad we did this one in person but i am i'm not about to happen

[3:27:17] Voice 5: i i'm inclined to think that we have to get the right balance uh it makes sense to have a meeting

[3:27:28] and as we've already done uh to

[3:27:31] Voice 5: have them on the islands we've got that both in june and august

[3:27:36] Voice 5: If Zoom meetings are the most efficient, then we should probably do it that way.

[3:27:41] Voice 5: My only proviso on that is it's obviously extremely valuable when you've got residents

[3:27:50] Voice 5: of a local trust area who have, for example, like the

[3:27:54] Voice 5: folks that came to

[3:27:54] Voice 4: Formanby, who've

[3:27:57] Voice 4: got delegations to make about pressing issues that apply to them.

[3:28:00] Voice 4: The fact that we were able to have the type of interchange that we did, I thought was

[3:28:04] Voice 4: their help so it's impossible to predict ahead of time but uh i guess i if we do have delegations

[3:28:16] Voice 4: i'd like to that are of that pressing nature

[3:28:19] Voice 5: if we can pull it off we can schedule them for june

[3:28:23] Voice 5: and august when you're in person i think that'd be handy uh because i don't think zoom's the best

[3:28:27] Voice 5: but if zoom is the only way we can be able to i guess we'll have to do it soon i hear you like

[3:28:32] Voice 5: i tend to agree trustee stanford think we need to um we have a lot of different meetings a lot of

[3:28:38] Voice 5: different issues and unless something's really pressing that requires public

[3:28:42] Voice 5: that is you know a situation where the things to be discussed are best suited

[3:28:47] Voice 5: to give the public an opportunity to be there and maybe contribute to what extent it can

[3:28:53] Voice 5: so it makes sense so let's let's do it our way

[3:28:59] Voice 5: my way tickets are

[3:29:01] Voice 5: well it's how many else um and then just so if we do march electronic

[3:29:07] Voice 5: august 29th i think generally start 11 on january just because of the way the

[3:29:13] Voice 5: very soft so coming in 11 better and if we're coming in electronic why is the time

[3:29:24] Voice 5: August 29th.

[3:29:25] Voice 5: Oh, I see. In person.

[3:29:27] Voice 5: Oh, yeah.

[3:29:29] Voice 5: When do we want to have the

[3:29:32] Voice 5: Zoom meetings

[3:29:34] Voice 5: timing?

[3:29:35] Voice 5: It doesn't matter.

[3:29:37] Voice 5: And so is that going to be then March,

[3:29:40] Voice 5: October, November, or do we want to

[3:29:42] Voice 5: meet in person here or somewhere

[3:29:44] Voice 5: else in, say, November?

[3:29:47] Voice 5: Weather starts to get wacky.

[3:29:49] Voice 5: Yeah. I'm easy. I'm

[3:29:52] Voice 5: finding Zoom is

[3:29:54] Voice 5: Okay. So then we'll say that Mark.

[3:30:00] Voice 5: electronic so let's get a motion to that effect to schedule what else is there so

[3:30:08] Voice 5: they'd be in person it doesn't have to be electronic but well we have the resolution here

[3:30:13] Voice 5: yeah it only needs to be modified so we can say to to take into the line in person

[3:30:21] Voice 5: here's the motion that the uh i move that the gander island local trust committee

[3:30:25] Voice 5: shelly woods regular business meetings uh on march 14 june 20 august 29 october 17th and november 21

[3:30:36] Voice 5: 2023 comma with the meetings on june 20th and august 29th to be held in person on keats island

[3:30:49] and

[3:30:49] Voice 6: Gander and Island perspective.

[3:30:55] Voice 6: Is that sufficient?

[3:30:56] Voice 6: And we get those comments.

[3:30:59] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[3:31:00] Voice 5: We move

[3:31:01] Voice 5: to a seconded.

[3:31:01] Voice 5: Seconded by Kate Lewis-Tandler.

[3:31:03] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[3:31:04] Voice 5: I carry.

[3:31:05] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:31:10] Voice 6: Introductory meeting with other elected officials.

[3:31:12] Voice 6: I'm

[3:31:18] Voice 5: just looking at you because you're waiting to get to the in-camera session.

[3:31:21] Voice 5: That's entirely up to the...

[3:31:26] Voice 5: Introductory meeting with other elected officials.

[3:31:27] Voice 5: Let you know, a letter's going out probably

[3:31:30] Voice 4: next week now.

[3:31:30] Voice 4: I've just been authorizing it to all other elected officials, MPs, and MLAs telling them that we're

[3:31:37] Voice 4: all

[3:31:38] Voice 5: here, we're happy, and we are looking at good stuff, and please come to an LTC meeting.

[3:31:46] Voice 5: So what specifically do you want to do? Do you want to hold up? So I'm glad to hear that the

[3:31:53] Voice 5: letters have gone out to MLAs who don't usually have a regular meeting.

[3:32:08] Voice 5: So we don't usually have things set up with the MLAs or MPs but there is always a good

[3:32:14] Voice 5: opportunity as we start on the track to do that. I know Patrick was very amenable to having a session

[3:32:23] Voice 5: session so that is maybe something joe and i can leave here um

[3:32:31] Voice 5: often i just if that's a preference of the chair i often just call them and say are you around

[3:32:39] Voice 5: and what's your office hours and go there but your preference is through it often seems that

[3:32:46] Voice 5: staff have the ability to figure out what everybody's schedule is if

[3:32:50] Voice 4: our staff speak

[3:32:51] Voice 4: with his staff. You can certainly open the door, go, hey, get your staff to call our staff. Is that

[3:32:57] Voice 4: okay with you? Yeah.

[3:32:59] Voice 5: So that's useful. And primarily, we don't have a specific, it's just a

[3:33:04] Voice 5: background joke, but it's primarily looking at our issues around air link vessels,

[3:33:12] Voice 5: those kinds of things. Once

[3:33:14] Voice 4: we get the meeting scheduled, we

[3:33:16] Voice 5: should just have a... It's just

[3:33:17] Voice 5: very basic but it's it's very insurance capital um but we do usually set up meetings with the

[3:33:24] Voice 5: regional district yeah at least once a year yeah um whether or not we want to start that now or

[3:33:31] Voice 5: wait until next meeting because i uh it's very handy that you're on the regional district board

[3:33:41] Voice 5: but for us it's up to you but the there does seem to be a perennial issue in that

[3:33:53] Voice 5: the honest trust relationship with regional districts isn't as developed in terms of

[3:33:59] Voice 5: the honest trust act contemplates there'll be a lot more working together and it doesn't seem to

[3:34:05] Voice 5: be a lot of working together um an introductory meeting or the occasional meeting retail boards

[3:34:12] Voice 5: i don't know if that's the vehicle that we're doing that but if we did i'm going in the

[3:34:19] Voice 5: direction of does it make you mentioned meeting maybe once a month i mean once a year um once

[3:34:27] Voice 5: a year plus yeah okay that's quite

[3:34:30] Voice 4: a difference the uh i'm wondering if we want to explore the

[3:34:36] Voice 5: possibility of setting up a more regular communication slash meeting schedule so that

[3:34:44] Voice 5: we might be able to uh start working closer with the regional district on issues of

[3:34:53] Voice 5: joint concern i mean what's happening with the well in eastbourne is an example of like a

[3:34:58] Voice 5: practical thing i'm not talking about abstractions i'm talking about concrete things that need to

[3:35:04] Voice 5: happen than coordination like that whole thing that's happening in East Barnwell is a coordination

[3:35:09] the fact that you're uh

[3:35:13] Voice 5: part of the regional district now is facilitating that if you weren't

[3:35:20] Voice 5: there uh I anticipate there'd be a lot of confusion and miscommunication and people bumping

[3:35:24] Voice 5: into each other but I'm thinking that the fact that you're on the board may give us an opportunity

[3:35:28] Voice 5: opportunity to develop a practical working relationship so maybe we could meet more often

[3:35:35] Voice 5: than just have the introductory but on this i'm going to defer to you i mean you're in the

[3:35:39] Voice 5: belly of the beast over there you know what's going on yes i think my recommendation would be

[3:35:46] Voice 5: to ask that to coordinate one meeting for now i i know that there i'm going to say chaos but

[3:35:59] Voice 5: But there is quite a bit going on, and especially because we're in the same position as the

[3:36:05] Voice 5: Honest Trust, everything's being orientated, but we have this additional layer of emergency

[3:36:10] Voice 5: situations with water that still needs to be resolved, and how that needs to get up

[3:36:16] Voice 5: and running.

[3:36:17] Voice 5: So I would suggest we just have the initial meeting, but I really...

[3:36:20] Voice 5: We can engage with the Appetite.

[3:36:21] Voice 5: yeah um what you say trustee granado is that because we cross two different areas so we're

[3:36:29] Voice 5: not hearing your area in regards to thornaby and our traditional lines of communication

[3:36:36] Voice 5: and there's some issues around access to area the islands from the screen that is becoming

[3:36:48] Voice 5: So there are certainly, um, there are avenues of better coordination and at the very least

[3:36:55] Voice 5: providing communication on how the Regional District impacts them, because I don't believe

[3:37:03] Voice 5: in that.

[3:37:06] Voice 5: So yeah, I think to start off then, sure, um, we get started on the motion.

[3:37:12] Voice 5: I move that the Amber Amble Trust Committee ask staff to remain in a meeting with the

[3:37:19] Voice 5: Sunshine Coast Regional District

[3:37:21] Voice 6: as soon as can be possible as soon as we usually have our scale

[3:37:39] Voice 6: doesn't happen she does so that's

[3:37:44] Voice 5: to make sure that that invitation is extended I'm just going

[3:37:49] Voice 5: to have its srd board and perfect staff and it may be that yeah just because I know that there's

[3:37:59] Voice 5: on the scheduling going on it might be declared by stepping as the senior moved

[3:38:13] Voice 4: and seconded any

[3:38:14] Voice 4: discussion yeah all those in favor that carries yeah

[3:38:18] Voice 5: move on go ahead was there another requesting

[3:38:21] Voice 5: staff to set up for just this one yes well i'm thinking of moody okay yeah sorry catherine did

[3:38:28] Voice 5: you not did it was that

[3:38:30] Voice 5: kind of blurby sure well

[3:38:32] Voice 3: i'm just wondering if um i have to add in chair

[3:38:36] Voice 3: Chair Luckum's amendment to it,

[3:38:37] Voice 3: which would be that the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee

[3:38:40] Voice 3: asks staff to schedule an introductory meeting

[3:38:43] Voice 3: with the Sunshine Coast Regional District

[3:38:46] Voice 3: Senior Representative as soon as can be possible?

[3:38:50] Voice 5: No, it would be the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

[3:38:54] Voice 5: and pertinent staff.

[3:38:57] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:38:59] Voice 5: And what staff?

[3:39:00] Voice 5: Pertinent.

[3:39:00] Voice 5: Oh, pertinent staff.

[3:39:02] Voice 5: That Island's Trust and...

[3:39:04] Voice 5: Yeah.

[3:39:04] Voice 5: And?

[3:39:05] Voice 5: that gets it yeah okay okay

[3:39:10] Voice 3: thank you so

[3:39:11] Voice 7: you're right catherine sorry about that

[3:39:14] Voice 7: and

[3:39:15] Voice 5: then um request the gander on local trust committee request staff to set up a

[3:39:23] Voice 5: introductory meeting with the ministry of transportation infrastructure

[3:39:28] Voice 5: uh the regional sunshine coast regional office as

[3:39:35] Voice 6: soon as conveniently possible that can be by zoom

[3:39:45] Voice 6: you should you need to say that let

[3:39:49] Voice 5: them decide so i just yeah that's a good idea exactly

[3:39:52] Voice 5: anything else on that one thank you uh so i'm going to move on uh 13.1 out of trust

[3:40:04] Voice 5: conservancy report dated october the 6th that's there for

[3:40:07] Voice 5: our appreciation of the work that they

[3:40:09] Voice 5: do as past chair of the uh conservancy do you have any remarks you'd like to make

[3:40:15] Voice 5: only that i really miss it i wish i was still on it and i

[3:40:19] Voice 5: guess um everyone's

[3:40:21] Voice 5: worried about like violence in the session is there any word on uh filling up the vacancy

[3:40:36] Voice 5: we'll just receive that information um so we have now at 13.2 the applications report

[3:40:43] Voice 5: saskat staff has any updates uh i'll probably be able to send those reports

[3:40:48] Voice 5: work. Otherwise, we'll just ask trustees your questions if they have things filed.

[3:41:00] Voice 5: There's no updates. So, trustees and Trustee Sanford.

[3:41:05] Voice 5: For GM 22.0 or 22.1. I looked at the PID and I just couldn't find it.

[3:41:16] Voice 5: I wonder if it's incorrect.

[3:41:18] Voice 5: Yeah. Just said it was wrong. I have it up.

[3:41:30] Voice 5: Do you have any questions about the Senate case?

[3:41:33] Voice 5: None. Thank you.

[3:41:35] Voice 5: okay uh adopted policies and standing resolutions that's there we've asked staff to provide some

[3:41:42] information for another one

[3:41:43] Voice 5: so thank you for stepping into that uh breach and that we'll

[3:41:47] Voice 5: continue on uh first nations activities um is there anything to report recommending the nations

[3:41:59] Voice 5: local trust committee web page that's if you wanted to do something on the website you could

[3:42:05] Voice 5: ask for i don't think it's unusual but i would like the report the survey for the canada ocp

[3:42:13] Voice 5: chart uh cpu review i'd like that it's a separate item i think that you would do that this is a

[3:42:22] Voice 5: survey question or the survey report oh yes yeah because it's not happening actually on that point

[3:42:29] Voice 5: yeah on that point on the web page um as possible um i'd like to see a link added to

[3:42:40] Voice 5: that web page uh to the either the northern office or at least provide the phone number

[3:42:50] Voice 5: or an email address or the northern planning office so that people when they land at our

[3:42:57] Voice 5: local trust committee page and likewise anything on the gambier page but they've got a question

[3:43:04] or they they want to reach out to staff as opposed to us so it's

[3:43:10] Voice 5: just handy for them to just click

[3:43:12] Voice 5: there you know so i'm just adding asking for a link to the northern office because i'm assuming

[3:43:18] Voice 5: that's the staff that they need to talk to look at the people in our trust area if they've got

[3:43:24] Voice 5: a staff-oriented question that's number or email address you need to contact so through the chair

[3:43:30] Voice 5: on the website the all trust website go to contact us and um below on that

[3:43:42] Voice 5: once that screen webpage you scroll down to main offices and it's listed northern office gabriel

[3:43:50] Voice 5: And if you click on that, it'll have the map link, it'll have the telephone number, and

[3:43:55] Voice 5: it'll have the email questions straight to our office.

[3:43:59] Voice 5: Well, I know that that's there now.

[3:44:01] Voice 5: I'm just thinking of just adding another link, just to make it when somebody's on the LTC

[3:44:07] Voice 5: page, they don't have to go through the rest of the treaty to get to the staffing vote.

[3:44:12] Voice 5: It's just right there if they want to be judged on the staffing.

[3:44:15] Voice 5: And also to add to that, we aren't going to clear that Gabriela means the family.

[3:44:21] Voice 5: It's not intuitive.

[3:44:23] Voice 5: Unfortunately, Gabriela is.

[3:44:25] Voice 5: No

[3:44:26] Voice 7: way, but they don't

[3:44:27] Voice 6: understand it without

[3:44:27] Voice 5: talking to me.

[3:44:29] Voice 5: I got it.

[3:44:31] Voice 6: So it's fun.

[3:44:36] Voice 6: Just make it easier.

[3:44:40] Voice 5: Oh, yeah.

[3:44:42] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:44:47] So I'm going to go to work programs now.

[3:44:49] We've got active projects, future projects.

[3:44:51] Voice 5: I think we've discussed that.

[3:44:54] Voice 5: Some of these, I don't know what or where they're coming from. They're ancient, so we've got customized Southern Isles, and that's 2013.

[3:45:10] Voice 5: I don't know what that is, I don't know what that refers to. And then anything below that, future projects report, Felicity Adams was from 2011.

[3:45:23] Voice 5: 11. A lot of the stuff is not.

[3:45:28] Voice 5: The

[3:45:30] Voice 8: chair, I think I know what's happened. They changed the system where we the database where we enter in our projects. And now you have to put in a timeframe to print a report. And what I think happens is that someone should put a timeframe forever and it's

[3:45:46] Voice 8: breaking up. Because when I did it with the correct timeframe, you saw what I generated my report.

[3:45:52] Voice 8: Okay, so I think

[3:45:54] Voice 5: that makes sense.

[3:45:56] Voice 5: Error.

[3:45:56] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:45:59] Voice 5: No, that's okay.

[3:46:01] Voice 5: Just because the other trustees

[3:46:03] Voice 5: wouldn't know.

[3:46:06] Voice 5: So I think we've just decided

[3:46:08] Voice 4: that our next regular meeting

[3:46:09] Voice 4: is Thursday, March the 14th

[3:46:11] Voice 4: at 11 o'clock electronically.

[3:46:14] Voice 4: So that's the event.

[3:46:17] Voice 5: And now we're going to go

[3:46:18] Voice 5: into an in-camera session

[3:46:19] Voice 5: uh with uh the foreign agreement so i passed with a promotion to be read out

[3:46:24] Voice 5: and uh we'll have that conversation

[3:46:29] Voice 5: you guys have a card yeah we have learning right we're taking the ferry yeah we're taking the ferry

[3:46:38] Voice 5: our flights are canceled since 3 25 uh if anybody needs a ride to horseshoe bay i'm happy

[3:46:44] Voice 5: I don't like her so I can I can be your text um I move that there may be close to the public

[3:46:52] Voice 5: in accordance with the community charter part four division three ninety one d and f the first

[3:46:58] Voice 5: considering d of doctrine in general we did september 1st 2022 and have bylaw reports

[3:47:13] Voice 5: I'm going to unfortunately,

[3:47:18] Voice 4: Catherine, I'm going to have to turn this off because I don't

[3:47:21] Voice 4: want members of the public involved in this or jumping in.

[3:47:27] Voice 4: So I think I'm just going to ask staff

[3:47:30] Voice 5: to take minutes of the camera meeting.

[3:47:32] Voice 5: Can we not just turn off the live stream and leave Catherine?

[3:47:40] Voice 4: Honestly, I don't know if there's a risk of

[3:47:43] Voice 5: somebody joining the session.

[3:47:45] Voice 5: Should we just put the screen down just to protect against it?

[3:47:51] Voice 4: But it's what we're talking

[3:47:53] Voice 5: about that's more important than being seen.

[3:47:56] Voice 5: Well, I mean, like, if you've seen the screen down, it just shuts the signal on for sure.

[3:48:02] Voice 5: Yeah,

[3:48:04] Voice 7: but then Catherine can't take the minutes.

[3:48:08] Voice 4: Yeah. I think I'm just going to ask the staff in the room here, Catherine, to take the minute,

[3:48:12] Voice 4: so it just makes it easier. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you.