Islands Trust Regional Planning Committee regular meeting, May 1, 2026

[0:00:00] Voice 9: everybody welcome to the regional planning committee meeting of friday may the 1st 2026

[0:00:05] Voice 9: we are meeting across the territories of a number of indigenous people on various islands

[0:00:13] Voice 9: go ahead uh

[0:00:15] Voice 1: sam is still waiting for a link okay um i can tell them to go into attend

[0:00:22] Voice 9: sure we've had a few technical issues which are being resolved so we hope we'll have a

[0:00:27] Voice 9: cover more people online shortly. We're meeting by Zoom across the territories of a number of

[0:00:34] Voice 9: Indigenous people on the beautiful islands in the Salish Sea. And so with that, maybe I'll just do

[0:00:43] Voice 9: a round table. Just introduce yourself, say who you are, starting with David.

[0:00:52] Voice 6: Hi, everyone. I'm David Graham, locally elected on Delman, traditional territory of the Coast

[0:00:57] Voice 6: Coast Salish people, beautiful day, and happy to be here.

[0:01:01] Voice 1: Laura?

[0:01:03] Voice 1: Hello, Laura.

[0:01:04] Voice 1: Patrick, elected on Salt Spring Island,

[0:01:07] Voice 1: territories of many Coast Salish First Nations.

[0:01:12] Voice 1: Toby, if you're ready.

[0:01:15] Voice 3: Who knows what's going to happen this morning.

[0:01:18] Voice 3: Toby Elliott, elected on Gabriela Island,

[0:01:22] Voice 3: representing much of Ndikorsi,

[0:01:25] Voice 3: is the name of First Nation territory,

[0:01:26] Voice 3: and also liaison to executive committee for this,

[0:01:30] Voice 3: for RPC. Okay, Stefan.

[0:01:35] Voice 8: Good morning, everybody. Stefan Cermak, Director of Planning Services,

[0:01:39] Voice 8: coming to you from Salt Spring Island, much like Chair Patrick said, the home of many

[0:01:44] Voice 8: Coast Salish First Nations. Rob.

[0:01:49] Voice 2: Good morning, Rob Croker, Planning Services Admin Assistant,

[0:01:52] Voice 2: coming to you from the Victoria office, and humbled and very grateful to be joining you

[0:01:58] Voice 2: from the home of the Lekwungen Speaking Peoples.

[0:02:01] Voice 9: Thanks.

[0:02:01] Voice 9: And William, if you're online, I'm not sure.

[0:02:05] Voice 9: Do you want to?

[0:02:06] Voice 9: Yeah.

[0:02:09] Voice 4: Hello, I'm William Schober,

[0:02:11] Voice 4: Senior Freshwater Specialist with the Islands Trust.

[0:02:13] Voice 4: And I'm coming to you from beautiful Salt Spring Island.

[0:02:16] Voice 4: Thank you.

[0:02:17] Voice 9: Okay, thank you all.

[0:02:18] Voice 9: And Maureen Boland,

[0:02:20] Voice 9: Trustee for Saturna Island.

[0:02:24] Voice 9: Okay, let's move on.

[0:02:26] Voice 9: We'll just review the agenda.

[0:02:29] Voice 9: Agenda number one, late items, new items, reordering of the agenda.

[0:02:34] Voice 9: Anybody want to add anything?

[0:02:36] Voice 9: Thanks, Rob.

[0:02:39] Voice 9: Yes, go ahead, Toby.

[0:02:41] Voice 3: Sure, thank you, Chair.

[0:02:43] Voice 3: If we could add minor project criteria, which was an item of discussion from our PC's January 13th, 2026 meeting, which we'd intended to bring back.

[0:02:55] Voice 3: That'd be great.

[0:02:57] Voice 9: Okay, that's fine.

[0:02:59] Voice 9: We should add that in.

[0:03:03] Voice 9: um business other is that right steven that's what

[0:03:08] Voice 8: i would recommend chair section yeah because

[0:03:10] Voice 9: it's not new yeah so business other minor projects okay anybody want to add anything else

[0:03:17] Voice 9: um i asked that we have a discussion about the status of the fresh water sustainability strategy

[0:03:31] Voice 9: strategy and external review i don't know if that's explicitly in there stephan do should i

[0:03:39] Voice 9: put that in in that business other as well uh

[0:03:43] Voice 8: chair we can you know it's it's one of your

[0:03:46] Voice 8: major projects that are working on and as as such we put it we can discuss it in the um

[0:03:52] Voice 8: uh the project review section

[0:03:54] Voice 11: that's

[0:03:58] Voice 8: right yeah

[0:03:59] Voice 11: just trying to look

[0:03:59] Voice 8: specifically what number that

[0:04:00] Voice 8: that is. And

[0:04:02] Voice 3: 7.4, yeah.

[0:04:04] Voice 8: That's right. Or 7.4, or as always, section 10 might even be more

[0:04:09] Voice 8: appropriate. Oh, sure.

[0:04:10] Voice 9: Okay, fair enough. Yeah. Okay. Just a quick sort of status update. I find

[0:04:15] Voice 9: it hard to keep track of all of these things, and it's useful to keep them sort of slightly

[0:04:20] Voice 9: apart, slightly on the boil. Okay, so that's two items there. And so, with that, can I,

[0:04:30] Voice 9: by consensus say that the agenda is approved or would anybody like to say anything else

[0:04:38] Voice 9: that's okay chair

[0:04:39] Voice 8: if i may um sorry i know you're in the middle of a vote the uh just recognizing

[0:04:43] Voice 8: that uh vice chair borthwick has shown up and he didn't get to do it

[0:04:47] Voice 8: himself okay

[0:04:48] Voice 9: uh welcome sam

[0:04:52] Voice 9: do you want to just say who you are and uh we just went to a quick round table just name and

[0:04:58] Voice 9: where from go ahead uh

[0:05:00] Voice 5: yes i'm trustee worthwick uh from demin island to stake um vice chair

[0:05:05] Voice 5: this committee sorry i'm late i didn't get a link so i came through the website eventually

[0:05:12] Voice 5: um yeah um looking forward to getting to work yeah

[0:05:17] Voice 9: well don't feel uh don't feel put out we

[0:05:20] Voice 9: were all in the same boat initially and so we sorted it out okay great so um with that anyway

[0:05:28] Voice 9: Anyway, the agenda is approved and we're going to move on to the public comment period.

[0:05:33] Voice 9: And Rob, is there anybody from the public online?

[0:05:40] Voice 2: We don't have a member of the public in attendance today so far, Chair Boland.

[0:05:45] Voice 9: Okay, that's fine.

[0:05:46] Voice 9: So we'll move on.

[0:05:48] Voice 9: Delegations?

[0:05:49] Voice 9: None?

[0:05:52] Voice 9: So moving on, we're now at correspondence.

[0:05:54] Voice 9: Respondents. So thank you, Chair Patrick, for the... I'm just going to silence my phone here. It's giving me little beeps.

[0:06:04] Voice 9: Thank you for the letter. Would anybody like to comment on that?

[0:06:07] Voice 9: It was a good letter and it was important to respond with respect to the challenges or the questions that were asked.

[0:06:16] Voice 9: So thank you very much for that. Anybody else want to say anything?

[0:06:19] Voice 9: thing just

[0:06:22] Voice 5: just the same um i think it was i think it was a well-written letter well done

[0:06:26] Voice 5: laura um and and yeah i think it's i think it's important to respond and i think it was well done

[0:06:32] Voice 5: right okay

[0:06:35] Voice 9: i have to keep an eye on the hands up here the layout is a little bit different

[0:06:41] Voice 9: but anyway yeah okay so that's the correspondence so now we're on to the um section uh six

[0:06:48] Voice 9: administrative coordination so the draft minutes of the previous meeting um anybody have any

[0:06:56] Voice 9: comments there nope i thought they were pretty good as usual i'm always pleased to find some

[0:07:05] Voice 9: small typo so that i can uh prove that i read them carefully and uh there is one sentence

[0:07:16] Voice 9: where it says the top of page nine i believe it should be loss not less and um it's uh it was

[0:07:27] Voice 9: it was the presentation on um on species at risk some leading municipalities have moved from no

[0:07:34] Voice 9: net less i believe that should be loss to seeking positive gain so um if everybody is

[0:07:43] Voice 9: in agreement with that and there are no more comments and I'm I suggest that the

[0:07:50] Voice 9: minutes are adopted as amended anybody want to object yeah thanks thumbs up

[0:07:57] Voice 9: good okay and so that's the minutes and resolutions without meeting none

[0:08:06] Voice 9: follow-up action list let's look at that so that's on page 14 I didn't have a lot

[0:08:18] Voice 9: of there's a lot of content in it but um go ahead uh stephan thank

[0:08:27] Voice 8: you chair noticed a quirk

[0:08:29] Voice 8: unfortunately we didn't notice until after the agenda was produced and a couple questions were

[0:08:33] Voice 8: asked um i'm not going to comment too much on what's there you can see what's been done what

[0:08:37] Voice 8: hasn't been done hasn't changed too much uh but we also noticed that it the uh it wasn't being

[0:08:43] Voice 8: reported after it wasn't updated after july 25th so we met missing the september and february

[0:08:48] Voice 8: meetings um we're aware of that and we're updating it um yeah as as you know we had um a change of

[0:08:55] Voice 8: personnel and um we had a strike and we not sure if it was an in-house error or if it's a computer

[0:09:00] Voice 8: error but we became aware of it and we're addressing it so our apologies that it's not as

[0:09:05] Voice 8: complete as it

[0:09:06] Voice 8: normally is um

[0:09:08] Voice 9: could you send out a new version as soon as it's ready just send it

[0:09:11] Voice 9: the RPC as a separate standalone document so that we can prepare a little bit and we'll just is

[0:09:20] Voice 9: there anything in it that you want to draw attention to?

[0:09:25] Voice 8: Chair I think the the main thing

[0:09:27] Voice 8: that caught our attention was the follow-up action list for the minor projects criteria I was tracking

[0:09:33] Voice 8: it in my own notes but of course it wasn't showing up in the in the follow-up action list so it wasn't

[0:09:37] Voice 8: necessarily being circulated um that's the main one that comes to mind oh no there's another one

[0:09:44] Voice 8: regarding fresh water sustainability strategy and as per your minutes show a resolution you

[0:09:50] Voice 8: made last minute last meeting it's not showing up here either so um those are the only two that

[0:09:55] Voice 8: really come to mind either otherwise it was all the business that sort of resulted from those

[0:09:59] Voice 8: meetings has been completed so i think those are the two key things but i can certainly when it's

[0:10:03] Voice 8: updated for the follow-up action list to the RPC, especially considering it's not in this agenda.

[0:10:11] Voice 9: Okay that would be great and those two items will come up for discussion in the agenda anyway. Okay

[0:10:17] Voice 9: great. Anybody else want to raise anything about this? Okay good. So now we're on to item number

[0:10:29] Voice 9: seven business work program items and the first one is the annual report page 18 in your agenda

[0:10:37] Voice 9: um anybody want to speak to that you're all very silent bunch today i thought it was

[0:10:52] Voice 9: pretty good and that it covered what we did and it's it's incredibly hard oh and go ahead trustee

[0:11:01] Voice 9: Graham.

[0:11:02] Voice 7: Oh, thank you, Chair Boland. I was just going to say the same thing. I didn't think there

[0:11:07] Voice 7: was anything missing and I was at this point prepared to make the motion. So when you're

[0:11:11] Voice 7: ready, go ahead.

[0:11:13] Voice 9: Okay, that's fine. I was actually, I'm always shocked when I read these things that

[0:11:19] Voice 9: I have a very blurry memory of what happened over the year. And it's sometimes quite helpful to be

[0:11:25] Voice 9: reminded. Sometimes it's not helpful to be reminded, but sometimes it's helpful to be

[0:11:29] Voice 9: be reminded and reasonably positive. So, okay, go ahead, Trustee Graham.

[0:11:34] Voice 7: So, I'll move that the

[0:11:35] Voice 7: Regional Planning Committee approves the attached text for inclusion in the 2025-2026 Annual Report

[0:11:41] Voice 7: for approval by Trust Council and submission to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

[0:11:47] Voice 9: Sam, you're seconding it? Yep. And, okay, let's call the vote. All those in favour, raise your

[0:11:56] Voice 9: hands and that is me too okay anybody uh who opposes it lower your hands anybody who opposes

[0:12:06] Voice 9: it raise your hand okay that motion is carried thank you right um this is going along so quickly

[0:12:17] Voice 9: i'm zipping through my agenda pages here um so a change of date for the regional planning

[0:12:26] Voice 9: and committee november meeting a request for decision uh i have no issue with that other

[0:12:33] Voice 9: than to try and figure out how it happened that we have a conflict but you don't really need to

[0:12:40] Voice 9: explain i was just a bit surprised um and uh i would is it does anybody have any issues with

[0:12:47] Voice 9: this proposal no okay can i nominate you trustee graham to read that uh recommendation motion

[0:12:59] Voice 9: motion again, since you're so good at it.

[0:13:01] Voice 7: You can, Chair Bowen. I move that the Executive

[0:13:05] Voice 7: Committee, no, hang on, where's the motion? The

[0:13:09] Voice 9: second one, yeah.

[0:13:10] Voice 7: Second one. I move that the

[0:13:11] Voice 7: Executive Committee requests the Regional Planning Committee to cancel the November 27th, 2026

[0:13:18] Voice 7: Regional Planning Committee's meeting and schedule a special meeting on January the 8th, 2027.

[0:13:24] Voice 7: seven

[0:13:25] Voice 9: okay stefan do you want to speak to this in some ways sorry this thank

[0:13:30] Voice 8: you before that motion

[0:13:31] Voice 8: is uh seconded i just thought i'd point out you know this was the report and it was just for

[0:13:36] Voice 8: convenience that went from executive committee now it's coming to you for convenience we didn't

[0:13:41] Voice 8: attach a um yet another briefing to it so if you just change that instead of saying that executive

[0:13:47] Voice 8: committee request the regional planning committee just say that the regional just take out the

[0:13:52] Voice 8: executive committee request part okay

[0:13:55] Voice 9: i was wondering about that i thought we were going

[0:13:57] Voice 9: to go into a loop here where we would ask the executive committee who would ask us who would

[0:14:01] Voice 9: ask the executive committee but yeah okay that makes sense so do you want to reread it trusty

[0:14:07] Voice 9: graham i

[0:14:08] Voice 7: do want to reread that in fact uh shall i do is it just the second one that i need to do

[0:14:13] Voice 7: both of them anyway

[0:14:15] Voice 9: i move

[0:14:16] Voice 7: that the regional planning committee to cancel the november 27

[0:14:20] Voice 7: 2026 regional planning committee meeting and schedule a special meeting on january 8th 2027

[0:14:26] Voice 7: okay

[0:14:28] Voice 9: that's seconded by trustee borthwick you make a good team and uh let's um so let's

[0:14:36] Voice 9: call the vote so all those in favor raise your hands and me uh lower your hands

[0:14:44] Voice 9: uh all those anybody opposed raise your hand okay that carries fine um right 7.3 communication

[0:15:00] Voice 9: summary and options for land information screening tool list report uh stephan do you want to open

[0:15:09] Voice 9: the batting on this please i'm

[0:15:14] Voice 8: actually going to turn the floor over to uh william shulba to start

[0:15:17] Voice 8: I could certainly provide an overview, but I think we all know the tool.

[0:15:21] Voice 8: You've talked about it recently at the last meeting.

[0:15:25] Voice 8: And so out of that last meeting came the resolution for some more information about communications and a summary of options.

[0:15:32] Voice 8: This report was largely put together by William Shulbaugh, who has been very active in ensuring the professional work he does is input into there.

[0:15:41] Voice 8: And of course, he also happens to be a GIS wizard, which is perhaps a secret that's getting out there.

[0:15:47] Voice 8: So if I could turn it over to William Schulte, if he's ready.

[0:15:51] Voice 9: Okay, William, go ahead.

[0:15:57] Voice 4: Can you hear me?

[0:15:59] Voice 11: Yeah.

[0:16:00] Voice 11: Oh, great.

[0:16:01] Voice 4: Thank you, RPC.

[0:16:03] Voice 4: And, yeah, so introducing the communication summary and options for the list tool within the housing toolkit.

[0:16:15] Voice 4: it and uh yeah the rpc requested that staff would provide options and recommendations to improve on

[0:16:23] Voice 4: the methodology and and largely that's what the report does i lay out a background of list and

[0:16:29] Voice 4: how we got here um i gave a little bit of context on um who would be um the audience of communication

[0:16:39] Voice 4: tools and and how different communication tools will be tailored to that audience and

[0:16:47] Voice 4: provide a little bit of timing and work program considerations based on discussions with

[0:16:54] Voice 4: planning services about staff resources and also the timing of the term and provided several

[0:17:03] Voice 4: options in the communications options and hopefully you read and got there so the first

[0:17:08] Voice 4: First one is to refine the housing options toolkit

[0:17:14] Voice 4: for in the housing options toolkit.

[0:17:20] Voice 4: And that would provide a little bit more context

[0:17:24] Voice 4: within there, which is an open public document.

[0:17:27] Voice 4: And that one, the current state of it

[0:17:30] Voice 4: is attached in my staff report.

[0:17:33] Voice 4: We provided to local trust committees

[0:17:36] Voice 4: when we introduced the list on several islands

[0:17:40] Voice 4: through a presentation package.

[0:17:42] Voice 4: And I also touched that here

[0:17:45] Voice 4: and I just standardized it a bit more

[0:17:47] Voice 4: to make it more general to be applied to any island.

[0:17:51] Voice 4: And then the third option,

[0:17:54] Voice 4: which we do not have,

[0:17:57] Voice 4: is a public-facing web information product.

[0:18:01] Voice 4: So currently, the staff has a web map that is on our intranet, so it's not public, and planning staff can use that when they're presenting to the local trust committee or use it in workshops.

[0:18:18] Voice 4: workshops. There is some sensitive data that is located within that web portal, that web

[0:18:28] Voice 4: map where we aren't allowed to share it, namely archaeological information. So if there were

[0:18:36] Voice 4: to be a public-facing information product, then we would have to address those issues

[0:18:42] Voice 4: issues with some of the privacy and and sharing agreements we have with data uh and then the

[0:18:50] Voice 4: fourth option is to is more of a internal organizational structure to generate a policy

[0:18:59] Voice 4: around list and how it is placed in staff reports and how we include it in future official community

[0:19:06] Voice 4: plan reviews and also the type of communications that may be released to the public during those

[0:19:14] Voice 4: projects. And yep, so that's the report in a nutshell. So without further ado, I imagine

[0:19:26] Voice 4: there's discussion. So unless through the chair, if my fearless director of planning has anything

[0:19:33] Voice 4: anything to add. I will turn it back to the RPC. Thank you.

[0:19:37] Voice 9: Thank you, William. Stefan, do you want to add anything? Or

[0:19:42] Voice 9: should we jump to the floor?

[0:19:45] Voice 8: Yeah, thank you, Chair. You know, I don't want to anticipate

[0:19:47] Voice 8: the conversation. Some, you know, trustees have reached out

[0:19:51] Voice 8: with their thoughts and opinions. So I'd rather respond

[0:19:54] Voice 8: to the questions and as we're ready to go.

[0:19:57] Voice 9: Okay, well, I'll put myself on the speakers list as well. But

[0:20:03] Voice 9: Who would like to go first?

[0:20:05] Voice 9: Feedback, comments, suggestions?

[0:20:07] Voice 9: Trustee Patrick, Laura, go ahead.

[0:20:09] Voice 1: Oh, you know me.

[0:20:10] Voice 1: I'm always willing to jump in and talk.

[0:20:15] Voice 1: I'm going to have a number of comments,

[0:20:17] Voice 1: but just in regard to what you just said, William,

[0:20:19] Voice 1: on some of the layers and the archaeology layers and so forth,

[0:20:22] Voice 1: I do understand there are data layers or data commitments that we have

[0:20:25] Voice 1: where we cannot share, but I can tell you at ABICC this weekend,

[0:20:31] Voice 1: and our keynote speaker made it really clear in terms of indigenous relations and that we need to

[0:20:36] Voice 1: be clear, accurate, and transparent. So while we might not be able to share the layers, we really

[0:20:42] Voice 1: need to be able to say and explain how it's been used in those details. And I think a prime example

[0:20:49] Voice 1: of that is Gabriel Island, where one of the layers from the, I'm sorry, the list, I'm going to call

[0:20:58] Voice 1: because I can't keep up with the name of the product that they're looking at, got out into the community and it created its own narrative.

[0:21:07] Voice 1: And it's caused some serious reputational harm to the Islands Trust and to the local trust committee's ability to do the entire OCP land use bylaw project.

[0:21:19] Voice 1: So, what I'm speaking about today comes from some, you know, really hard lessons learned on Gabriola and how we can move forward and do so well.

[0:21:33] Voice 1: I appreciate the report, and I know that this is a very sophisticated tool, and I know staff have put lots and lots of hours and time into developing this.

[0:21:42] Voice 1: but we're talking about communicating just communicating um what's going on and to me

[0:21:52] Voice 1: these are downstream measures we're just telling people what we did but people want to be involved

[0:21:57] Voice 1: in how we did it and where the choices are and so i think what's really missing from this

[0:22:02] Voice 1: communications while it's focused on communications is what are the upstream involvements and we need

[0:22:07] Voice 1: to be able to explain that to how does the community how does the local trust committee

[0:22:12] Voice 1: get involved in the tool's inputs, assumptions, and applications.

[0:22:17] Voice 1: And so I think it's, you know, we can look at the various options.

[0:22:22] Voice 1: They all have their plus and minuses.

[0:22:23] Voice 1: But overall, I think that we need, you know, I think at least one or more of the communication

[0:22:29] Voice 1: options need to be paired with a formal engagement process.

[0:22:34] Voice 1: And that, you know, we need staff to come back with, you know, some options on how to

[0:22:40] Voice 1: to do this transparently, how to do this island-based,

[0:22:44] Voice 1: and how to co-develop some of the data inputs

[0:22:46] Voice 1: and methodologies.

[0:22:47] Voice 1: Because at the end of the day,

[0:22:48] Voice 1: we need that trust from the community

[0:22:50] Voice 1: to believe and understand this tool

[0:22:53] Voice 1: and how it's used in the decision-making processes.

[0:22:58] Voice 1: Thanks, Laura.

[0:23:01] Voice 9: Go ahead, Sam.

[0:23:05] Voice 5: Yeah, I mean, I appreciate this.

[0:23:09] Voice 5: I appreciate the report.

[0:23:10] Voice 5: I think, I think the, the, the rationales laid out in it are, are good. Um, I still have

[0:23:20] Voice 5: personal questions and wonderings about the, the upstream and, and the, the, how, like how these

[0:23:29] Voice 5: things were, are planned to be rolled out. And I still feel like I don't have personal answers on

[0:23:34] Voice 5: what is the process going to be about setting weighting, um, for, for the tool. And I know

[0:23:40] Voice 5: this is not a this is discussion about the tool not the tool itself so i will try and restrain

[0:23:45] Voice 5: myself from that but similarly on denman and perhaps less explosively um but i think we we

[0:23:54] Voice 5: also have had a list data brought before us which had serious issues and i think i think it was only

[0:24:02] Voice 5: not as damaging because people already had an expectation that the information was going to

[0:24:09] Voice 5: to be out of touch and not connected and it had it did serve to underscore this thing of

[0:24:15] Voice 5: our planners don't know anything about our island um and this has been a consistent problem that

[0:24:21] Voice 5: there has never been versions of this deployed on denman that that haven't had these issues

[0:24:26] Voice 5: um and i think uh to some degree you know figuring out parsing out how to communicate that out

[0:24:36] Voice 5: uh while there's still a degree of of lack of confidence in the tool itself is is gilding the

[0:24:43] Voice 5: lily a little bit um i it i'm really challenged i'm really struggle with this um i you know the

[0:24:56] Voice 5: coming up with a way to communicate it i think is going to be vital i first like i still yeah i

[0:25:03] Voice 5: I still feel like it hasn't been adequately parsed for us.

[0:25:11] Voice 5: And it's, I appreciate that it's a very exciting tool.

[0:25:16] Voice 5: I'm not, I think that it's very challenging to use it

[0:25:22] Voice 5: when it still opens up all of these questions for the public.

[0:25:26] Voice 5: And I should, I want to be, in my role as trustee,

[0:25:32] Voice 5: I want to be the greatest cheerleader

[0:25:34] Voice 5: of staff's tools and initiatives I really do and I'm not feeling like I'm

[0:25:41] Voice 5: making headway on this one and that's frustrating thank

[0:25:48] Voice 9: you Sam Toby go ahead

[0:25:52] Voice 3: thanks really good comments I'd like to view Mr. Porthwick and Laura I concur

[0:26:02] Voice 3: occur, there needs to be, I think, more work in developing the, how is this process informed by

[0:26:10] Voice 3: both the decision makers who are sitting with planners and trying to interpret it for community,

[0:26:20] Voice 3: and like you said, how are communities able to contribute to the weighting of certain things?

[0:26:30] Voice 3: So I'm wondering if, just pausing the conversation on what communication tools are possible, but as Laura said, sort of taking a half step back and saying, can we reposition this tool or the list as a tool in development?

[0:26:47] Voice 3: and put this on the projects list as something that RPC is wanting to, you know, have some more

[0:27:00] Voice 3: conversation about, tease out the different pathways, and recommend to council that this

[0:27:09] Voice 3: is put on as actually a major project, because it has to do with, you know, the interface with

[0:27:17] Voice 3: our community members and i think there does need to be um some more thought put into what

[0:27:25] Voice 3: how are the process of criteria amended like i think you said william in the report it's that's

[0:27:32] Voice 3: the most interpretive um part of it and i think there needs to be guidance or guardrails maybe on

[0:27:41] Voice 3: who's doing the interpreting what are the inputs that go in at what stage of the process

[0:27:48] Voice 3: Because ultimately, I want to support this tool. I think it's absolutely needed. And it dovetails with another process that I think RPC needs to consider undertaking if council gives direction.

[0:28:08] Voice 3: I'd like to put a motion together to ask council to give direction to RPC to undertake this, and that's some way of overseeing the delivery, the changes of, sorry I had a note on this, but maybe I'll come back to it.

[0:28:33] Voice 3: but it's, oh, the planning and referrals to other agencies.

[0:28:40] Voice 3: So that's a trust council directed project,

[0:28:44] Voice 3: referrals to First Nations,

[0:28:46] Voice 3: early engagement with First Nations on OCP

[0:28:50] Voice 3: and major projects and different applications.

[0:28:55] Voice 3: I think this is an area where we have to look at our terms of reference

[0:29:00] Voice 3: and say, is this an opportunity for RPC

[0:29:06] Voice 3: to help guide that process so those are the two I'm thinking of but thanks for your input everybody

[0:29:11] Voice 3: I agree with whatever.

[0:29:14] Voice 9: Thanks Toby go ahead David.

[0:29:20] Voice 7: Thank you chair unless you want to hear from

[0:29:24] Voice 7: no even saying no don't talk to me yeah so thank you for the previous comments I've really been

[0:29:31] Voice 7: spending a lot of time in my head thinking about this I understand that staff you know this is a

[0:29:37] Voice 7: tool that they use and have been using prior to this, especially with housing and where

[0:29:43] Voice 7: would we be comfortable looking at potentially increasing density.

[0:29:47] Voice 7: I get that.

[0:29:48] Voice 7: The problem is when it becomes a public document, that's when some of our sharper Islanders

[0:29:55] Voice 7: go, wait a minute, that's not correct.

[0:29:58] Voice 7: That's not right.

[0:29:59] Voice 7: And that's...

[0:30:00] Voice 7: when we as trustees have a real tough time feeling as uh as my co-trustee trustee Borthwick said

[0:30:07] Voice 7: we're stuck in the middle so we've got we staff which we really appreciate the work that staff

[0:30:12] Voice 7: do and we understand the work that's very professional but we also have a community on

[0:30:17] Voice 7: each of these islands which is which is very very clued into what's going on and where lines should

[0:30:22] Voice 7: be and where areas um exist uh from a historical and a current perspective something that you know

[0:30:28] Voice 7: that only comes with decades of living on an island and that kind of history. So I think this

[0:30:34] Voice 7: tool isn't quite ready for public examination. It's a great start, but I think we're really

[0:30:43] Voice 7: asking for trouble by even developing a communications tool with the tool as it

[0:30:47] Voice 7: exists. There needs to be a lot more effort put into truthing the layers and the data. Some of

[0:30:54] Voice 7: data is really good and it's fresh but some of the data is really old and and i know on demo

[0:30:59] Voice 7: in particular is inaccurate and so uh let's just take a step back i appreciate um trustee elliott's

[0:31:06] Voice 7: suggestion and i tend to agree that uh let's go slowly let's let's get this tool up to the point

[0:31:13] Voice 7: where we have confidence in it and we can support staff's recommendations to our public when they

[0:31:19] Voice 7: they bring the maps to the community.

[0:31:23] Voice 7: We don't have to hide our faces and think, how am I going to explain this to my community?

[0:31:28] Voice 7: So that's, and I guess the other thing that I just wanted to reference is this tool is

[0:31:34] Voice 7: all about increased density.

[0:31:36] Voice 7: I mean, primarily, and this is not an area where I'm really comfortable with.

[0:31:41] Voice 7: We're in a trust area.

[0:31:42] Voice 7: We should be thinking a little more about areas where we need to protect.

[0:31:48] Voice 7: but if there was some way of using this tool for something other than increased density and

[0:31:54] Voice 7: and i know i'm yeah it's not the only area that this tool is used but this is the one that's

[0:32:00] Voice 7: mentioned in all of the various options that we've been reading about

[0:32:06] Voice 9: okay that's

[0:32:08] Voice 7: me so i'm

[0:32:10] Voice 9: just going to put myself on the list now before you william if you don't mind so i have swirled

[0:32:15] Voice 9: around in my head i love a bit of technology i love maps and nothing better than to zoom through

[0:32:22] Voice 9: the map and you know put layers on top of each other and i've i've sort of flip-flopped around

[0:32:28] Voice 9: about this i agree with a lot of what people have said that some of the data layers need an update

[0:32:33] Voice 9: i think that in a way this is codifying something that people did intuitively uh so most planners

[0:32:43] Voice 9: planners and people who live on the island would look at the zoning maps and from their own

[0:32:49] Voice 9: knowledge basically bring those layers together and go you know what what about this area what

[0:32:53] Voice 9: about that area um so i think we've gone too fast because it's not as though this is this is another

[0:33:02] Voice 9: step on an evolution through map it and through what was being done intuitively um but we've

[0:33:10] Voice 9: launched it in a way that implies that it's hard coded and what it displays is what we have to do

[0:33:19] Voice 9: and um i think one of the things that i liked the best about all of the information that was

[0:33:26] Voice 9: provided was the implementation section which is the top of page 39 and this i believe this

[0:33:34] Voice 9: piece should be put into the online description immediately which is it's a decision support tool

[0:33:44] Voice 9: and not a regulatory instrument and the outputs are intended to inform planning judgment policy

[0:33:54] Voice 9: development community decisions rather than to prescribe specific land used outcomes

[0:34:00] Voice 9: comes. And it says areas identified as having lower relative suitability should not be interpreted

[0:34:07] Voice 9: as conservation designations. Conversely, areas identified as having higher relative suitability

[0:34:15] Voice 9: do not imply development approval or reduced regulatory oversight. So I feel that that is

[0:34:22] Voice 9: the crux of the matter that people when they see it think this is the result this is where you know

[0:34:31] Voice 9: we cannot alter this but I think it needs to be really emphasized and it didn't come across in

[0:34:37] Voice 9: the presentation material the fact that it is basically a way of pulling together

[0:34:43] Voice 9: the information you need to inform the discussion that begins at that point and that isn't

[0:34:51] Voice 9: emphasized enough and when I read this paragraph I thought a kind of a light bulb went on I thought

[0:34:58] Voice 9: okay that's the first piece I've seen that really in my view places it in the right position it is

[0:35:06] Voice 9: a way of collating information that is otherwise confusing and disparate and the other thing I

[0:35:15] Voice 9: thought about was that the key for me is the step from layers and maps which always existed

[0:35:22] Voice 9: to weightings so the weightings and i read you know how technically that's done how the

[0:35:29] Voice 9: classifications and the data are normalized and the fact that there's a very careful record kept

[0:35:37] Voice 9: and that people are um instructed to not mess around with it without you know um

[0:35:46] Voice 9: discussion um and i thought about that a lot and i thought so is there a situation if this is just a

[0:35:54] Voice 9: question and i'll leave it there is that if you for instance have a community discussion on saturn

[0:35:59] Voice 9: and the weightings are challenged and adjusted can you keep a snapshot of i can understand that

[0:36:08] Voice 9: the main model and the main rules will have to be you know maintained in some sort of fixed way

[0:36:15] Voice 9: But if you have a discussion in the community about a particular situation, can you save a snapshot of the adjustments that were made during that and keep it as, you know, April 2026, it's a turn of community discussion on application XYZ and a record of what was changed and adjusted.

[0:36:42] Voice 9: So and then the last thing I'll say is that I think we should, like as Trustee Graham said, step back a bit and go more slowly.

[0:36:56] Voice 9: It doesn't have to be, you know, resident facing.

[0:37:02] Voice 9: I think it should continue to be used, but that the trustees should be really up to speed on what's being done.

[0:37:09] Voice 9: and any map that's produced from it should have a lot of discussion before it's put in front of

[0:37:17] Voice 9: anybody in the public domain and yeah I think we should slow down but I see it as an evolution

[0:37:25] Voice 9: that we can't step away from and oh yeah I had one other question so it's an Esri product

[0:37:33] Voice 9: product and they must have i would love to see see some examples because the first thing you do

[0:37:40] Voice 9: if you do an example in the gulf islands everybody will zoom into their lot and go there's no tree

[0:37:45] Voice 9: there or whatever so um it would be really helpful if you had some use cases to illustrate it from

[0:37:54] Voice 9: from neutral or other places to show how it can be used in a good way without actually putting

[0:38:03] Voice 9: our data in, which causes everybody to shrink their view immediately. And I'll stop now because

[0:38:10] Voice 9: I've said rather a lot, but the content of the implementation section should be immediately put

[0:38:18] Voice 9: it into the web-facing land use, whatever it is, list two on the web. Thank you, everybody.

[0:38:27] Voice 9: And I'll go to William and then back to Laura. William, go ahead.

[0:38:34] Voice 4: Well, I'm confused. That was a lot. So I'm going to try to organize my thoughts in a concise way.

[0:38:44] Voice 4: way. But on the first, it seems like, you know, the recommendation that the RPC provided

[0:38:53] Voice 4: in February, we're kind of walking back from that right now. But let me just use my report

[0:39:05] Voice 4: and the attached document that is the list technical guidance document, because it seems

[0:39:12] Voice 4: like that's where a lot of the trustees went to and and indeed it was our intention to

[0:39:18] Voice 4: attach this document to this report to show you the competency level of staff in implementing

[0:39:25] Voice 4: this tool and if you do look at layer one like i i'm not in agreement with the lack of confidence

[0:39:33] Voice 4: on layer one type one data we have you know data from the bc public service or from bc

[0:39:42] Voice 4: administrative environment from the bc conservation data center from the bc vegetation resource

[0:39:48] Voice 4: inventory from the freshwater sustainability strategy which has been a peer-reviewed

[0:39:54] Voice 4: professional work from the past five years and then go bc and our cad so like the type one data

[0:40:02] Voice 4: and how it's processed in the in the suitability model is I I'm I believe that we could do better

[0:40:12] Voice 4: communications on that and and describe how we go from those that basic data the foundational data

[0:40:20] Voice 4: data to suitability weighting, which is on page 38. And this work here, going from these

[0:40:33] Voice 4: foundational data sets, which are called the layers, and into the classification values,

[0:40:41] Voice 4: that is what we're saying is protected practice. It takes a biologist to determine

[0:40:45] Voice 4: determine if you know a cliff sensitive ecosystem is a very low suitability that's that's protected

[0:40:52] Voice 4: practice that's for a biologist to determine likewise with some of the freshwater work that

[0:40:58] Voice 4: those classification suitability ratings came from the professional consultants and engineering and

[0:41:04] Voice 4: geoscience firms that have been working for us where where the discussion comes in and where

[0:41:11] Voice 4: we're really trying to offer the community to make a like to be involved in the engagement

[0:41:17] Voice 4: the decision matrix is this is the overall suitability weighting of those layers used

[0:41:24] Voice 4: in the model so if we really value groundwater recharge then that layer can be elevated and if

[0:41:33] Voice 4: we don't really care so much about road adjacency that layer can be lower that's a community

[0:41:38] Voice 4: discussion. That's what's available on the foundational level of the model. And then

[0:41:44] Voice 4: I'm in agreement with the RPC saying we need more engagement. Yes, we need to have more local

[0:41:51] Voice 4: knowledge. And often that local knowledge is type two data. These are overlay data layers from

[0:41:58] Voice 4: conservation groups or like other types of community engagement work that is maybe more

[0:42:06] Voice 4: social science we can take those overlays and then and then use them in to like within the decision

[0:42:12] Voice 4: uh framework uh that we're trying to undertake here um the i don't maybe i'll i'll maybe defer

[0:42:21] Voice 4: to uh stefan for for this notion but it's like where do we insert engagement right like if we

[0:42:29] Voice 4: want to insert engagement on our foundational data layers that's difficult because we already

[0:42:35] Voice 4: already have them and and that that if there is uncertainty on the foundational data layers then

[0:42:43] Voice 4: that's a serious topic in inserting engagement to determine the value of those foundational layers

[0:42:50] Voice 4: in a community is really important and i think yes we're lacking there and that usually is embedded

[0:42:55] Voice 4: in say like an official community plan review a major project so the engagement of list or the

[0:43:02] Voice 4: engagement even carrying forward say freshwater like the freshwater footprint for gabriola was

[0:43:08] Voice 4: in the context of the ocp major project which has its own engagement process that has been

[0:43:16] Voice 4: developed specifically for that project um and and so that's where i think where this can really be

[0:43:21] Voice 4: discussed is uh in that context of of identifying areas for housing opportunity within say like an

[0:43:29] Voice 4: ocp major project update but um yeah thanks i'll i'll

[0:43:33] Voice 9: okay thanks william i'll just insert one

[0:43:37] Voice 9: comment and then i'll move back to the speakers which is stephan followed by laura i think the

[0:43:42] Voice 9: one that draws the most attention and the one that's most frustrating and there's no need to

[0:43:47] Voice 9: answer this but it's the ground uh groundwater wells they are often wrong they're in the wrong

[0:43:54] Voice 9: location because of different projections so you know i can look at the map right here and my

[0:44:00] Voice 9: neighbor's well is located out in the middle of tumbo channel and i know that's not true so the

[0:44:06] Voice 9: groundwater wells are something that people are very familiar with especially on their own

[0:44:10] Voice 9: properties and they are frequently wrong and i think that is and it has a huge weighting factor

[0:44:17] Voice 9: because because it's right through all of the other reports risk of saltwater intrusion blah

[0:44:23] Voice 9: blah, blah, blah, is one of the foundational influencing factors, and it's not right.

[0:44:30] Voice 9: So that's just my take on it, but I'll leave it at that. Over to you, Stephan.

[0:44:37] Voice 8: Thank you, Chair. I did note that Trustee Patrick had her hand up before me, but I'll just

[0:44:42] Voice 8: defer to you if you would like me to continue or go to Chair Patrick first.

[0:44:49] Voice 9: Chair Patrick or Trustee Patrick, would you like to speak?

[0:44:52] Voice 9: Well,

[0:44:53] Voice 1: I wanted to bring Director Cermak and William Shulba back to last term when Dr. Tara Martin and the GIS student that built what I think Trustee Graham would like to see, a GIS software about where to conserve and protect property.

[0:45:14] Voice 1: so it was the the opposite of of this tool um the power in that case was having that live

[0:45:23] Voice 1: ability to see the decisions and the implications of the decisions that we were making as participants

[0:45:30] Voice 1: um if we could change the waiting in real time the map changed in front of us we could see

[0:45:36] Voice 1: the impact of you know putting more emphasis here and less there and as you know i think about

[0:45:43] Voice 1: but right now we've got a tool

[0:45:44] Voice 1: that sort of spits out a PDF of a printed map

[0:45:49] Voice 1: and right away you're kind of,

[0:45:51] Voice 1: it's difficult to understand how and where it came from.

[0:45:55] Voice 1: And you can imagine the power of that tool

[0:45:57] Voice 1: that we saw from Dr. Tara Martin in working groups,

[0:46:04] Voice 1: working through community about being able to say,

[0:46:06] Voice 1: okay, well, if I do this increase here, reduce here

[0:46:09] Voice 1: and see the map change before their eyes.

[0:46:13] Voice 1: It just has an ability to really bring people along and see the usefulness.

[0:46:26] Voice 9: Okay, Stefan, go ahead.

[0:46:28] Voice 9: Thank you, Gloria.

[0:46:29] Voice 8: Great.

[0:46:30] Voice 8: Yeah, that was, I'm just commenting on the last one just because it was the last one.

[0:46:35] Voice 8: That is quite insightful and I agree with that.

[0:46:37] Voice 8: I'm just going to kind of summarize a few thoughts, what I'm hearing here.

[0:46:41] Voice 8: And really, hearing, you know, that the tool list, as it's being currently recreated in this current format, like you said, we've always as planners used something similar.

[0:46:55] Voice 8: But the difference here is, of course, we've created, we've rebuilt this because the last one we had, the methodology was more or less lost or was indecipherable from the previous GIS manager.

[0:47:08] Voice 8: and so we spent a lot of time rebuilding it making sure that it's transparent the method

[0:47:14] Voice 8: methodology is easy to understand in creating proper procedure in in-house to use it i think

[0:47:20] Voice 8: what i'm hearing clearly and i and i don't disagree is we sort of presented it to the

[0:47:26] Voice 8: community in a bit of a rushed excited way to explain some of the decisions and evidence-based

[0:47:31] Voice 8: decision that we were presenting to the community without really presenting the full methodology or

[0:47:36] Voice 8: bringing the community along with with the product and with the project so there's a bit of back

[0:47:43] Voice 8: stepping explaining and here we are today right getting right back to explaining the methodology

[0:47:48] Voice 8: so i think you staff really do support the the idea of you know we want this to be

[0:47:53] Voice 8: a transparent communication tool i think that's where our recommendations were heading with this

[0:47:59] Voice 8: And I think really it's the tool has limitations as is.

[0:48:05] Voice 8: We're not, you know, a UBC institution that's got, you know, funding for innovative things.

[0:48:11] Voice 8: We're a local government office doing planning with GIS, who's doing GIS for, you know, 13 LTCs and more.

[0:48:20] Voice 8: And they're rebuilding with new staff and re-envisioning things, a very limited resource.

[0:48:26] Voice 8: source. But we do want to do this transparent communication. We do have some online. We have

[0:48:32] Voice 8: much more robust communications in this report. And I think the intent is to really start in the

[0:48:39] Voice 8: place of communicating, just as you said, that this is just a tool. It's getting us out at the

[0:48:47] Voice 8: beginning of a process. It is not meant to be a black box. It's meant to be transparent. And

[0:48:54] Voice 8: And what we need to do, and as staff have recommended, have a way, a standard way of communicating that out in a way that is trusted and explainable and, you know, take a complex issue to some degree and put it into plain language.

[0:49:08] Voice 8: So I think that's really a value and we'd like to help do that. And I think the RPC, arguably through the Housing Strategic Action Plan and through this being a housing options toolkit tool, can play a part in that.

[0:49:25] Voice 8: that. But I do think that the first place for us would be to make sure that the communications

[0:49:29] Voice 8: as talked about on page 39, the implementation tool, that we really put that at the forefront.

[0:49:35] Voice 8: Staff very much understand that this tool is just a tool. It's not meant to be a decision-making

[0:49:41] Voice 8: thing. It's just a starting point for conversations. It's meant at the beginning.

[0:49:45] Voice 8: And when it comes to the layers of data, I'm glad that we can talk about it somewhat sophisticated.

[0:49:50] Voice 8: indicated, type one, type two, type three. Type one really is the domain of professional people.

[0:49:56] Voice 8: And whether you agree with it or not, it is the best available data we have. Perhaps we are seeing

[0:50:01] Voice 8: there's weakness in it and it needs to be updated. That's a different discussion. But almost always

[0:50:07] Voice 8: elected officials have to make decisions based on the best information they have. And that's what we

[0:50:12] Voice 8: have. If we want to update the data, we can go source that, we can make that a project. But this

[0:50:17] Voice 8: This is the information we have.

[0:50:19] Voice 8: And I think type one is somewhat protected by that, you know, the professionals who make that.

[0:50:26] Voice 8: So I would recommend really keeping that.

[0:50:28] Voice 8: But the tuning, the community involvement, the value-based decision-making that's happening on Denman, that's happening on Gabriola, that should be happening on Salt Spring and other areas, and I guess has happened on Maine.

[0:50:42] Voice 8: Those are the type two, type three data layers.

[0:50:45] Voice 8: And I think we have a process here, and I thought it was there, but obviously it's not clear enough, that that should be involved at the beginning, at the very beginning.

[0:50:55] Voice 8: If you look at our standard way of doing information, at the beginning when we're sourcing data and then we're producing a preliminary report when an OCP project or LUB project is at the very beginning, that isn't baked into the process.

[0:51:10] Voice 8: And what I'm hearing is more interest to really make sure that that's there and we can do that.

[0:51:16] Voice 8: but it was always meant to be that.

[0:51:18] Voice 8: And that's, I think the community can come with that value

[0:51:21] Voice 8: at the type two and type three.

[0:51:22] Voice 8: I think if we go too far down the communications process

[0:51:28] Voice 8: without actually having a project related to it,

[0:51:31] Voice 8: I think it becomes a bigger project than it is right now.

[0:51:34] Voice 8: I think what we need to do

[0:51:35] Voice 8: is make a transparent communications.

[0:51:37] Voice 8: We need to clearly explain the methodology.

[0:51:40] Voice 8: And since I think this is the right time

[0:51:41] Voice 8: to develop this tool and the communications for it,

[0:51:44] Voice 8: because we don't have any new OCP projects,

[0:51:46] Voice 8: LUB projects based on Trust Council's resolution.

[0:51:50] Voice 8: So I think we can clean up the internal processes.

[0:51:53] Voice 8: I think via policy would be really helpful to us.

[0:51:56] Voice 8: I think that transparent communication

[0:51:58] Voice 8: about what the tool is and what the limits of it are,

[0:52:00] Voice 8: I think that's what I really heard Chair Boland talk about.

[0:52:05] Voice 8: But again, I want to emphasize that the sort of the type one stuff

[0:52:09] Voice 8: is a really kind of a core engine part.

[0:52:14] Voice 8: that um the professional is kind of the domain of the professionals i would not

[0:52:17] Voice 8: encourage us talking with that whereas the value stuff on type two and type three

[0:52:21] Voice 8: um can so um i look forward to creating a more standardized kit for communication and i think

[0:52:28] Voice 8: we can make sure that it's rolled out for um the next ocplub projects that are coming out

[0:52:33] Voice 8: yeah i'll leave it at that thank

[0:52:37] Voice 9: you um i believe sam you're next and then toby go ahead

[0:52:45] Voice 9: um

[0:52:48] Voice 5: so i want to be really clear as i feel like i do every time we talk about this i really

[0:52:54] Voice 5: am excited about the potential for this tool i am excited about maps i really appreciate the

[0:53:01] Voice 5: professional rigor and the incredible depth that's been gone into on building this thing

[0:53:05] Voice 5: um i like chair boland love a good map um and i i i that that that's not negotiable to me and i i

[0:53:19] Voice 5: I agree with Director Cermak and William Shulbaugh that type one data needs to be data driven.

[0:53:26] Voice 5: And I appreciate that this is intended to be an internal tool for staff, not necessarily a public communication mechanism.

[0:53:35] Voice 5: mechanism um and i i appreciate and i i have uh detected some frustration at various points

[0:53:44] Voice 5: um from staff who in terms of confusion about why uh based on all of those things

[0:53:54] Voice 5: i'm frustrated with this tool um and and and or that the public are are unhappy with it

[0:54:01] Voice 5: um and i think it it still comes back to this like fundamental thing of yes this is a tool

[0:54:11] Voice 5: that is internal it shouldn't necessarily need to be as exhaustively defended from a political

[0:54:18] Voice 5: standpoint in theory however everything we do every tool we create is inherently political

[0:54:25] Voice 5: because we are the government and so when communities see this they are going to they

[0:54:31] Voice 5: They are going to have questions.

[0:54:32] Voice 5: They're going to have whatever else.

[0:54:36] Voice 5: And I mean, when the first time we saw this, there was a road missing.

[0:54:43] Voice 5: Like a major way to get through the way that the waiting worked told people that told us

[0:54:49] Voice 5: that a real good place to build a community housing project would be between these two

[0:54:56] Voice 5: roads in the middle of where a road is.

[0:54:57] Voice 5: um and it's it i'm not i don't want to get like sidetracked by little specifics but i'm just

[0:55:04] Voice 5: trying to highlight that like there are issues with the type one it's not just wells i know that

[0:55:09] Voice 5: the well data comes from the province i've been watching this process like as closely as i can

[0:55:13] Voice 5: from this perspective the the issue i think that we have here is that this there's never been a

[0:55:20] Voice 5: hand on the wheel from our from from rpc and i totally appreciate staff need to and should have

[0:55:26] Voice 5: the freedom to go off and develop tools as they wish um but this tool you know cost a bunch of

[0:55:33] Voice 5: money was something that came from inside the regional planning committee was regional uh uh

[0:55:41] Voice 5: but it were from from within the planning department not from it never was initiated

[0:55:46] Voice 5: from a political point at the very beginning of when i first saw this the first meeting that i

[0:55:51] Voice 5: i saw this one of the first questions i had was when and how is the waiting going to be done and

[0:55:58] Voice 5: i'm totally fine for that and i agree that that waiting should be restricted to type 2 data like

[0:56:05] Voice 5: i i appreciate that that's the the discretional area but i still don't think i've had and i mean

[0:56:11] Voice 5: stefan you were just saying at the beginning um and you you you mentioned that that you know maybe

[0:56:16] Voice 5: was tied to an OCP process. My question would still be, so at the start of a term, are trustees

[0:56:25] Voice 5: going to have a special meeting where they sit down and talk about this stuff? Or is it going

[0:56:29] Voice 5: to be set when the OCP is set and then you just set it and forget it? The other issue I have with

[0:56:34] Voice 5: this in general, and again, this is where I feel like we have a responsibility to direct the way

[0:56:47] Voice 5: way that the trust does work. We, as trustees, that's, that's part of our job. I want to do that

[0:56:52] Voice 5: from a place where I'm listening to staff who are experts on the process. And if you say we need a

[0:56:56] Voice 5: thing, I want to believe, I want to trust you and believe you and go with that. This was not a thing

[0:57:02] Voice 5: where someone came to us and said, Hey, we'd like to make this thing. And then we go, yeah, go ahead.

[0:57:06] Voice 5: That sounds great. This was a thing where a thing was made and it was brought to us and said, Hey,

[0:57:11] Voice 5: we made this thing and when things were pointed out that were problems with it we instead got a

[0:57:18] Voice 5: lot of pushback or the know that those aren't problems and then it was and then it was publicly

[0:57:25] Voice 5: used and referenced in our housing project on gabriola to to back up other work so this tool

[0:57:34] Voice 5: went from being a project of staff directly into use without passing through any sort of

[0:57:44] Voice 5: approval process from trustees who have a different perspective and I understand that

[0:57:50] Voice 5: it's not a technical perspective but there is we we have we these things are inherently political

[0:57:56] Voice 5: there is always going to be that component and I and as I say I want to be your biggest cheerleader

[0:58:01] Voice 5: I want to help this I want to be able to pull this out and say hey here's this really cool

[0:58:04] Voice 5: cool thing that we have. This is how it works. Um, and, and I don't even need to know all of

[0:58:09] Voice 5: how it works. I just need to know that it does, um, you know, in, in, in a perfect world, the,

[0:58:17] Voice 5: um, uh, what's the other thing? Um, so because of, um, sorry, I've lost my train of thought

[0:58:30] Voice 5: there for a second. Uh, so, so in terms of like, I have, yeah, I have these questions about like

[0:58:36] Voice 5: like how and when certain parts of this waiting process are going to happen.

[0:58:39] Voice 5: And I don't want to get into worrying about how we're communicating about this tool

[0:58:46] Voice 5: when I still don't feel convinced that it's something that we should be using.

[0:58:50] Voice 5: And I don't appreciate the concept that it's just going to roll ahead anyways

[0:58:54] Voice 5: and going to be implemented because it currently has problems.

[0:58:59] Voice 5: And I have tried to go with the program.

[0:59:02] Voice 5: i've read these documents exhaustively and i again i think technically i'm not in any way

[0:59:08] Voice 5: calling into question the technical competence of the people who've put this stuff together it's

[0:59:13] Voice 5: good in a lot of ways it does there are some considerations to these things that uh that are

[0:59:19] Voice 5: not technical though and they do have a political influence especially when this is a tool that is

[0:59:24] Voice 5: intended to be a roadmap towards potential increasing density which is as david graham

[0:59:30] Voice 5: was saying you know that that's something that i'm not i'm also not necessarily comfortable

[0:59:35] Voice 5: with that being like i don't know that that's a tool that we need and certainly when i look at

[0:59:40] Voice 5: denman um you know and obviously i appreciate that this is across the islands and there's

[0:59:44] Voice 5: very different things happening on different islands but this tool is almost useless if

[0:59:51] Voice 5: this the there's a finite number of places that want to do increased density in the first place

[0:59:55] Voice 5: It doesn't matter what we as trustees or staff

[1:00:00] Voice 5: think oh this would be a great spot for it and and this tool might point us to those directions

[1:00:07] Voice 5: but if those people aren't interested in doing it it doesn't it's not useful um and and when it

[1:00:12] Voice 5: comes down to we've had places that wouldn't show up as being good housing options that are

[1:00:17] Voice 5: nevertheless the places that it has to go because of the nature of everything else that's going on

[1:00:21] Voice 5: on the island so we still have we're going to be dealing with such a limited number of applications

[1:00:26] Voice 5: that want to go towards community housing or increasing density or any kind of development.

[1:00:32] Voice 5: I don't know that we need a custom tool to tell us whether that's an approved place or not when

[1:00:38] Voice 5: we could also just compare the same criteria on a bespoke basis because we're only going to be

[1:00:42] Voice 5: doing it a finite number of times. To that point, and this is the thing that I sort of lost before,

[1:00:49] Voice 5: because the islands are geographically limited areas, there's only ever going to be so much

[1:00:55] Voice 5: that can be built in any place. This is an inherently finite tool. Because at some point,

[1:01:03] Voice 5: we're just not going to do any more of this. And so, I appreciate that it might be helpful

[1:01:09] Voice 5: in terms of pulling those things. But what we wind up getting, quite apart from it just being

[1:01:15] Voice 5: a finite thing that we're now talking about, and I still don't necessarily know that I've seen

[1:01:20] Voice 5: methodology for like how is this how often is this being updated how are we dealing with

[1:01:24] Voice 5: uh when someone says hey that's not where my well is um instead of just saying well no that's where

[1:01:30] Voice 5: it is even if it's in the middle of a channel we need to have a process that allows us to to

[1:01:36] Voice 5: engage with that process and need to be met halfway and and as a trustee i want to be the

[1:01:43] Voice 5: person who's like someone says hey this thing's not there and they're all mad about it i want to

[1:01:47] Voice 5: to be like you know what that's okay that's cool i'll go talk to them we can figure we can we can

[1:01:51] Voice 5: we can locate it in the proper place we can get this sorted i want to be able to to help this

[1:01:57] Voice 5: process i want to help make this tool work well i want to help work all i want to help with staff

[1:02:02] Voice 5: work um what's happened is that this has come forward without us having any kind of hand on

[1:02:09] Voice 5: the wheel so at no point have i been able to say well that this might be a thing to be considered

[1:02:13] Voice 5: considered and and when i have raised those points of being shut down and and because of that the way

[1:02:20] Voice 5: that this comes across and because it's now being used across various projects what we wind up with

[1:02:27] Voice 5: is is a is a tool that underlines the the the red string conspiracy theory that staff are trying to

[1:02:34] Voice 5: push a bunch of changes on the islands from far away and i don't think that that's the case i want

[1:02:40] Voice 5: want to be really clear i don't think that that's what you guys are trying to do i think that's an

[1:02:45] Voice 5: unintended consequence of the way that this has happened um and that there's no i have no personal

[1:02:52] Voice 5: umbrage with anybody about that but i i am frustrated that i have brought this point

[1:02:57] Voice 5: forward before and i at this point no matter how good the tool is i do not want to see it used on

[1:03:05] Voice 5: on any of the projects on my island

[1:03:08] Voice 5: because it causes so many other problems.

[1:03:12] Voice 5: And that sucks because it's a good tool

[1:03:15] Voice 5: and a lot of really good work has gone into it.

[1:03:17] Voice 5: But it is not useful if it creates other problems

[1:03:22] Voice 5: that wouldn't otherwise exist on the same project.

[1:03:27] Voice 5: Anyways, I've talked for a long time.

[1:03:29] Voice 5: I'm sorry.

[1:03:30] Voice 5: And I want to be really clear.

[1:03:32] Voice 5: I really appreciate the work that's gone on here.

[1:03:34] Voice 5: here. That is not me saying that as a bit. I really do. I want to be on side. I want to be

[1:03:41] Voice 5: the number one champion of this tool. And right now, I don't want to see it at all because it

[1:03:48] Voice 5: causes so many more problems than it solves.

[1:03:51] Voice 9: Thank you, Sam. Thanks. Okay. I think we get

[1:03:56] Voice 9: the drift of how you feel about it. Ambivalent. Would that cover it? Okay. Toby, over to you.

[1:04:08] Voice 3: Thanks. I think you made some really good points, Sam. It isn't meant to be political. It's meant to be science-based, but things become political because everybody already has opinions.

[1:04:20] Voice 3: And so if trustees can't help interpret it, we can't really. Anyway, I sort of see a solution here because where we're going or where I'm thinking we're going is that RPC wants a little more time.

[1:04:38] Voice 3: to help develop this tool which is probably very useful um it's a tool in development i think the

[1:04:45] Voice 3: communication um sort of policy and procedures certainly the communication document to staff

[1:04:53] Voice 3: is really good um i wouldn't want to see work stopped on that so i i can support you know

[1:05:01] Voice 3: Sending that on, I think, anytime it is used, whether it's on your island or not, there should be a very coherent, consistent way of communicating the tool.

[1:05:12] Voice 3: So I do support that attachment.

[1:05:15] Voice 3: I see this maybe as a bridge from the housing action plan.

[1:05:19] Voice 3: This is a tool that developed sort of in the scope of, it was the question, where is it responsible to put additional housing intensity or density?

[1:05:31] Voice 3: But I disagree with Graham, sorry, Trustee Graham, in that it's actually just about putting housing in certain places. It's also a bridge to developing more fuller picture of ecosystem health, density, disturbed areas, towards supporting a larger strategic plan initiative, which is, we can't forget, under 3.2, improve understanding and marketing.

[1:06:03] Voice 3: monitoring of ecosystem health. So I see this list tool actually falls as a sort of a closing

[1:06:14] Voice 3: the, you know, here's the suite of tools we developed, the housing action plan.

[1:06:20] Voice 3: This larger piece is really understanding the growth trends and projections, geological hydro,

[1:06:27] Voice 3: geological capabilities, infrastructure development rates that is on the way to developing a growth

[1:06:32] Voice 3: management planning framework and that's initiatives trust council initiative 2.1.2

[1:06:39] Voice 3: so i think this list tool is actually the project we should be working on instead of

[1:06:48] Voice 3: well we should finish off the housing action plan maybe this does that but it's on the way

[1:06:55] Voice 3: to this resiliency mapping project i think if i'm not mistaken because it's about how do we

[1:07:02] Voice 3: support proactive land use planning and establish limits to growth so this is where i disagree with

[1:07:07] Voice 3: um trustee graham a bit it's not about where you put housing but where not to put growth and

[1:07:14] Voice 3: housing we've got like the freshwater hazard mapping on gabriola now there's going to be

[1:07:18] Voice 3: definitely clear areas and limits where housing and additional densities should not go so this

[1:07:27] Voice 3: This tool must identify both opportunities for increased development and constraints,

[1:07:34] Voice 3: which is identified a little bit in some of the materials.

[1:07:39] Voice 3: So I see this as a bridge.

[1:07:42] Voice 3: Housing action plan.

[1:07:44] Voice 3: Where do we put housing?

[1:07:46] Voice 3: We also need to get to the resiliency ecosystems mapping of whatever ecosystems indicators of health.

[1:07:52] Voice 3: That very large project that we're not able to fund.

[1:07:55] Voice 3: And this is sort of this, I think, a tool to evaluate these critical factors.

[1:08:04] Voice 3: And it sort of becomes a baseline for that next stage of resiliency mapping.

[1:08:09] Voice 3: Does that make sense?

[1:08:10] Voice 3: So I'd like to see this replace something on RPC's active projects.

[1:08:14] Voice 3: Thanks.

[1:08:16] Voice 9: Thank you, Toby.

[1:08:17] Voice 9: I feel a bit the same.

[1:08:20] Voice 9: I feel almost like, sorry for interjecting myself.

[1:08:23] Voice 9: myself I keep I am on the list but I don't want my hand up okay I feel that that as you do that

[1:08:31] Voice 9: it is to me it's a land information uh it integrates information and allows visualization

[1:08:40] Voice 9: it's not necessarily there to deliver a direction the direction is provided by the project or the

[1:08:48] Voice 9: the discussion it just it's kind of passively integrating and allowing you to visualize data

[1:08:57] Voice 9: um in the way that you know maps and knowledge etc uh do uh specifically so just just a thought

[1:09:07] Voice 9: and then i'll move on is i think it would be really helpful william if we had somebody from

[1:09:15] Voice 9: the classification system to go through. I looked at it. It's very systematic. And there's a pattern.

[1:09:23] Voice 9: There's the classification value, the suitability, and then there's the overall suitability weighting,

[1:09:30] Voice 9: which is indeed the relative weighting of the different things. So arguably, if you were in

[1:09:35] Voice 9: an urban environment, you might throw sensitive ecosystems under the bus. But, you know, that's

[1:09:41] Voice 9: where the power comes and I think would be really helpful if we had a very short like half an hour

[1:09:49] Voice 9: 20 minutes on exactly who and how that was done and what you know gone so that we get a flavor of

[1:09:57] Voice 9: like everybody in the global community uses this system or no we um cooked this up in the Victoria

[1:10:05] Voice 9: office so that would be really helpful to set it in the context anyway moving on um laura then

[1:10:14] Voice 9: and in the order of the hands as they appear on my screen it's laura stephan and david go ahead

[1:10:21] Voice 9: laura

[1:10:21] Voice 1: well i want to trusty elliott was just tripping on some very important things here

[1:10:25] Voice 1: what are we trying to do what is this tool supposed to do first i guess it's before the

[1:10:32] Voice 1: the tool. What are we trying to do? Have we really defined that? And Director Cermak, you made a

[1:10:37] Voice 1: comment. We don't have the resources or the latest that, you know, like UBC has. So I think our,

[1:10:45] Voice 1: you know, I think Toby and I just took a course over the weekend on polarity thinking, and we

[1:10:51] Voice 1: talked about conviction and openness, and I'd say staff, through your conviction, worked with the

[1:10:57] Voice 1: tools that you had available to you, our internal GIS systems, the layers, the things that we had,

[1:11:02] Voice 1: And you worked within that and used that. Appreciate that. But what are we trying to do? And maybe we need to have access to more innovative or other things to make this better.

[1:11:14] Voice 1: We do have a relationship with UBC and through Dr. Tara Martin's conservation lab, a whole GIS system sitting over there that we've seen the fruits of here on Salt Spring already.

[1:11:27] Voice 1: ready and she said it's quite easy just to do the inverse of what we had done last term which is

[1:11:32] Voice 1: what we're trying to do here so I think we need to dwell and spend some time focusing on what is it

[1:11:38] Voice 1: we're trying to do and get real clarity around that and then look at what can we do using in-house

[1:11:47] Voice 1: tools and resources could it be better if we had access to um you know like the UBC

[1:11:55] Voice 1: tools that they have available and uh you know what's the costs what are all those things or

[1:12:01] Voice 1: how available is it to us thank

[1:12:09] Voice 9: you laura um okay uh stefan go ahead you're muted stefan

[1:12:22] Voice 5: thank

[1:12:26] Voice 8: you uh yeah i love the conversation appreciate it i too am a map nerd like behind

[1:12:32] Voice 8: me i think i have about 40 of them you know waiting for my my review um okay so a few things

[1:12:39] Voice 8: I just want to comment, I'm hearing this, I want to bring out, you know, later on in your agenda

[1:12:46] Voice 8: for today, when we're talking about the work program, I sort of mentioned, and I say, you know,

[1:12:51] Voice 8: what do you want to do next? What business cases do you want to do? What priorities do you want to

[1:12:55] Voice 8: have? I do mention in my work program later on in the agenda that the housing strategic action plan

[1:13:04] Voice 8: is recommended to become back to your top priority list

[1:13:07] Voice 8: because the bylaw enforcement component is coming off.

[1:13:10] Voice 8: Within that, this item, the land information screening tool,

[1:13:14] Voice 8: could fit within Action 10 of the Housing Strategic Action Plan.

[1:13:19] Voice 8: And I kind of just put that on up, you know, grabbed it from online.

[1:13:24] Voice 8: And that's all about, it says, identify suitable land for additional housing

[1:13:27] Voice 8: and density using best available environmental and social impact data.

[1:13:31] Voice 8: So that's what this was kind of doing.

[1:13:33] Voice 8: but it didn't it only got so far right it only used the information we had didn't really get a

[1:13:38] Voice 8: lot of social data or economic data and those kind of things so i think where this this tool was its

[1:13:46] Voice 8: purpose built to make sure it was sort of where to build and where not to build so we we wouldn't

[1:13:52] Voice 8: have released the tool without ensuring that there's environmental protection data in there

[1:13:55] Voice 8: we worked extensively with itc to make sure of that they grilled us to no end about it and we

[1:14:00] Voice 8: we assured them that we would make sure that it's there.

[1:14:04] Voice 8: But next steps, you're right.

[1:14:05] Voice 8: It was rolled out in terms of,

[1:14:07] Voice 8: because that was the dominant theme of LTCs this term,

[1:14:10] Voice 8: they wanted to address affordable housing.

[1:14:13] Voice 8: Where to put it?

[1:14:14] Voice 8: This is a natural,

[1:14:16] Voice 8: we had to, staff have to analyze the data one way or another.

[1:14:19] Voice 8: And because we found that the previous process,

[1:14:22] Voice 8: method of doing it was insufficient.

[1:14:25] Voice 8: So we had to rebuild it.

[1:14:26] Voice 8: And that's what you have today.

[1:14:27] Voice 8: And of course, we take that out to the community.

[1:14:30] Voice 8: they're almost bound to hate it and we can screen and work with them to go through the process in

[1:14:35] Voice 8: one way or another and trusty Borthwick I hear you if you don't like it don't use it totally

[1:14:40] Voice 8: we can make it work better it's really hard for staff to move them move a road where it should be

[1:14:45] Voice 8: I just found that same example when looking at an application on Salt Spring the road was in

[1:14:50] Voice 8: Samson Narrows I'm like well that's not right and that's not our data layer we imported

[1:14:54] Voice 8: it um so where to go with that i would recommend that if you're considering next steps um like

[1:15:01] Voice 8: you'll see later on the agenda i've sort of point out that this tool was part of it could be is is

[1:15:07] Voice 8: is a an action within the housing strategic action plan and you may wish to may wish may wish to

[1:15:14] Voice 8: focus on it at that time make a resolution for a business case or next actions or of course you

[1:15:19] Voice 8: can do it right now and i thought i'd give you some background information about that now as you

[1:15:23] Voice 8: you know we had RPM Kojima he's retired although he's quietly working he may pick up some hours

[1:15:30] Voice 8: here and there on the projects but he's essentially retired and we have a beautiful new

[1:15:35] Voice 8: hard-working RPM Mary Storzer she will be tasked with picking up some of the pieces from the

[1:15:44] Voice 8: regional planning team because her project management and skills are excellent and so

[1:15:50] Voice 8: So projects from the regional planning committee are going to fall into the orbit of the regional planning team so we can have a much more coordinate or improve our coordination amongst what's happening at the regional planning committee level versus the local trust committee level.

[1:16:04] Voice 8: So these tools are, there's a little more communication and oversight and usefulness.

[1:16:08] Voice 8: So excited about that.

[1:16:09] Voice 8: And we also get some planning time for this committee that's dedicated and formalized.

[1:16:16] Voice 8: It's been my goal for three years.

[1:16:19] Voice 8: So again, if the LTC gets Trust Council to agree that the housing strategic action plan is indeed top priority, and the RPC would like this tool to be updated, I think we can take next steps at that point.

[1:16:36] Voice 8: and I hear you but like this is just the baseline that we achieved and if you want to make it better

[1:16:41] Voice 8: as according to you know using UBC's Tara Martin or you want to put different data into this we

[1:16:49] Voice 8: can totally go there but I hope that provides some context about where we can possibly go and

[1:16:53] Voice 8: who's going to be doing it and when.

[1:16:58] Voice 9: Thanks Stefan some good ideas there and some good thoughts

[1:17:03] Voice 9: Yeah, I won't. I resist putting myself back on the list. Again, go ahead, David.

[1:17:11] Voice 7: Great. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Trustee Elliott. I agree with you. I think this tool, as tools go, could be used for an entirely different outcome, not an increased density, but in fact, an increased amount of land to be protected.

[1:17:28] Voice 7: But this particular report and everything that I've read in this report, all of the parts of it are very clearly, the tool is used to increase residential density and intensity.

[1:17:44] Voice 7: And those words are fighting words on most of these islands.

[1:17:49] Voice 7: And I think part of the pushback that we're getting on our islands is the fact that we only show this tool as a way to increase the population on our islands.

[1:17:58] Voice 7: And that was a mistake. Because I don't think as trustees or as people planning staff, that was the intention. This was a tool to use when evaluating the suitability of a piece of property that may become available. And that makes sense. That's a tool.

[1:18:15] Voice 7: why we want to you know put it run it up the flag and have communities look at it is beyond me

[1:18:23] Voice 7: without having the duality use of the tool but it's also an opportunity for pieces of property

[1:18:30] Voice 7: which may become available to the community for suitability for protection and there's almost no

[1:18:34] Voice 7: piece of property that that we wouldn't want to protect obviously but you can't say the same as

[1:18:41] Voice 7: as far as density is concerned.

[1:18:42] Voice 7: So that's really what I was reacting to

[1:18:47] Voice 7: was the single mindedness of this tool and its application

[1:18:50] Voice 7: where the application actually is much broader

[1:18:53] Voice 7: and could be more useful,

[1:18:55] Voice 7: especially for those of us graying islanders,

[1:18:59] Voice 7: some of whom have no dependents

[1:19:01] Voice 7: and maybe looking at an opportunity to give their property

[1:19:04] Voice 7: to the conservation branch of the Islands Trust.

[1:19:08] Voice 7: And then this tool we go, wow,

[1:19:09] Voice 7: oh, this is the connectivity of this piece of property is fantastic and blah, blah, blah.

[1:19:13] Voice 7: You know, so there you go. But thank you for your comments.

[1:19:18] Voice 9: So I'm going to put myself back on the list before you, William, if you don't mind.

[1:19:22] Voice 9: Yeah, I didn't get that flavor, David, to be honest, in that I did initially.

[1:19:28] Voice 9: It came, you know, it came out of the housing project.

[1:19:32] Voice 9: So its initial focus, indeed, was suitable land for housing.

[1:19:38] Voice 9: and I think it's much broader its use can be much broader and it just is as I said an evolution on

[1:19:45] Voice 9: the standard tools used by planners always which is you know consider all these intersection

[1:19:51] Voice 9: intersecting layers and look at this application of this proposal and I suppose it to some degree

[1:19:58] Voice 9: it's a little bit more proactive because if you get a good enough visualization tool with well

[1:20:04] Voice 9: integrated information that you can rely on then you can be more proactive than just looking at

[1:20:11] Voice 9: things in the context of an application or a proposal and in a general sense I feel like

[1:20:18] Voice 9: reflecting back on I think something that William said and Stefan is that you know we are a small

[1:20:27] Voice 9: organization with a small amount of land and a small amount of land that's that could change

[1:20:33] Voice 9: change its designation or its use and that we can influence so I would resist like spending vast

[1:20:42] Voice 9: numbers of resources and money on turning it into an all singing and dancing thing

[1:20:49] Voice 9: because realistically we have a limited scope of use for it and we should make it sort of fit for

[1:20:59] Voice 9: purpose and make it useful for planners primarily but so thinking on what David said I would suggest

[1:21:08] Voice 9: going back through the material that has been produced is pretty good but I would go back

[1:21:13] Voice 9: through it with fine tooth comb to broaden its scope to absolutely when weed out any implication

[1:21:21] Voice 9: that it is for increasing uh density make it a very broad planners tool evolutionary step

[1:21:32] Voice 9: and um i think we were oversold it in a very narrow context and that's colored how people

[1:21:42] Voice 9: perceive it and that needs to change. So I would say we should kind of step back and pause and

[1:21:54] Voice 9: not come back, come back to it, like circle back almost as Stefan has suggested, circle back to it

[1:22:03] Voice 9: in a different context, a broader context. Okay, thank you. William?

[1:22:08] Voice 9: uh

[1:22:11] Voice 4: thank you chair um not to be contrarian i i don't agree with that concept um and and for

[1:22:20] Voice 4: good reason um there is a risk of using a tool that was designed for a purpose for a different

[1:22:27] Voice 4: purpose and this tool and the professional opinions that went in to determine whether or not

[1:22:36] Voice 4: a cliffside of an ecosystem or if a high-density area of groundwater wells is suitable for housing.

[1:22:45] Voice 4: That was the objective. And what you're speaking of, can we use this tool to identify

[1:22:52] Voice 4: conservation areas? I wish I had it on hand, but you should see the Islands Trust Conservancy

[1:22:59] Voice 4: regional conservation tool, which is much more involved than the LIST tool and has many different

[1:23:10] Voice 4: data layers and intermediate data layers, and they're updating their tool, I believe, in the

[1:23:15] Voice 4: next, well, in the next term for sure. And so the risk in using LIST as a conservation

[1:23:27] Voice 4: identification tool is likely to uh in the hazard of not identifying the best places for

[1:23:34] Voice 4: conservation because that's not what the tool is um developed for and therefore that would just

[1:23:41] Voice 4: cause slightly um you know like different problems of of not identifying the most beautiful and

[1:23:49] Voice 4: conservation rich places on an island. This tool has been implemented I think quite successfully

[1:23:58] Voice 4: in its early days when Maine Island was looking for alternative housing options and I believe

[1:24:08] Voice 4: like that's what it was built for and that's its direction. I do agree with you having tools to

[1:24:15] Voice 4: identify conservation is really important and through the official community plant project of

[1:24:20] Voice 4: gabriola we took the the fundamental freshwater data that we have that's in list and that was

[1:24:29] Voice 4: advanced even further in the freshwater footprint project to to determine hazard uh freshwater

[1:24:35] Voice 4: hazard areas which shows um favorable areas for increasing intensity and density of land use and

[1:24:43] Voice 4: and areas that are not suitable for that,

[1:24:47] Voice 4: that if density and intensity was increased in those areas,

[1:24:51] Voice 4: it would increase the freshwater hazard,

[1:24:53] Voice 4: which we obviously don't want.

[1:24:56] Voice 4: So I just wanted to caution on that.

[1:24:58] Voice 4: I do agree with you, Trustee Graham,

[1:25:01] Voice 4: that having this tool specifically relating

[1:25:05] Voice 4: to increase in density and intensity

[1:25:08] Voice 4: in absence of other tools

[1:25:10] Voice 4: and looking at freshwater hazard or conservation efforts is misleading

[1:25:17] Voice 4: and would hope in like a fulsome OCP process,

[1:25:21] Voice 4: which I think we're going through on Gabby Roller right now,

[1:25:25] Voice 4: balances those values of the community.

[1:25:29] Voice 4: Thank you.

[1:25:32] Voice 9: Just to respond to that, William, I would have thought,

[1:25:37] Voice 9: and I've looked at the classifications

[1:25:39] Voice 9: And I've read the document fairly carefully that where what you describe as a constraint, i.e. it was designed to identify suitable land for development, where it swerves towards that is in the overall suitability weighting, which in the table that's presented seems relatively simple,

[1:26:05] Voice 9: example which is you know uh there's a weighting given to um you know road adjacency and for

[1:26:15] Voice 9: instance so you might i i wouldn't have thought it would be hugely difficult you'd have to bring

[1:26:20] Voice 9: in other layers but i wouldn't have thought it would be hugely difficult to change that relative

[1:26:25] Voice 9: of waiting to make like ecosystem protection waiting 50 and really you know in my view that's

[1:26:35] Voice 9: where the sort of um let's say that the prism or the lens can be altered for different purposes

[1:26:43] Voice 9: but i'll leave it at that and go back to sam sam go

[1:26:48] Voice 9: ahead uh

[1:26:49] Voice 4: chairs just made a comment on that um

[1:26:51] Voice 9: So

[1:26:51] Voice 4: you're correct in looking at housing within the housing toolkit, and if sensitive ecosystems are really valuable to or important to the community, you can raise the overall suitability weighting of that layer to 50% and lower, say, risk of saltwater intrusion or wells density to zero.

[1:27:12] Voice 4: And we're hoping that that's what happens. And when we did go around to the LTCs to present this, that didn't happen. We didn't have a good fulsome discussion of what community values are and should we change the weightings of those layers.

[1:27:30] Voice 4: What I was speaking of on how the different classifications of those layers relate to housing is in the classification value and the suitability rating of that classification, right?

[1:27:44] Voice 4: So within the sensitive ecosystems, the herbaceous and the mature forest and how they relate to the impact of developing housing, that's where that suitability factor came from.

[1:27:56] Voice 4: more so with like groundwater wells density is a little bit easier to think about where there's a

[1:28:01] Voice 4: lot of people wells together the risk of adding another well goes up but that doesn't comment on

[1:28:07] Voice 4: where those wells are adjacent to beautiful places like uh where trustee patrick and and i live

[1:28:13] Voice 4: there's a lot of wells in this area and there's a lot of conservation value so and you know that

[1:28:17] Voice 4: there's i mean they're sometimes adjacent to each other uh but the overall suitability weighting the

[1:28:25] Voice 4: the simple layer weighting that you're speaking of, yes, that's what we're offering. We're hoping

[1:28:31] Voice 4: that those weightings get changed by the community or trustees or through engagement and workshops.

[1:28:37] Voice 4: And we care a lot about at-risk species and the domination of trees. And we don't care so much

[1:28:43] Voice 4: about watershed resiliency, if you will, or road adjacency. Those can be changed. Yeah, thank you.

[1:28:50] Voice 9: Okay, I don't think that's come through very well, but fair enough. So I'm just imagining a scenario where somebody goes, you know, young forest is incredibly important. In this context, it's not given a very high, well, it's given a high value because you can chop it all down with impunity.

[1:29:10] Voice 9: but in another scenario you might say well the young forest we have to really cherish it and

[1:29:16] Voice 9: bring it along but but that is that that's a view into the data and

[1:29:24] Voice 4: yes yes thank

[1:29:25] Voice 9: you has to be

[1:29:26] Voice 9: achieved through conversations and indeed for a particular purpose but it doesn't make it

[1:29:32] Voice 9: intrinsically impossible to use this tool for those like this tool you know you don't go in

[1:29:40] Voice 9: and choose a widget that says

[1:29:42] Voice 9: find me suitable land for development

[1:29:43] Voice 9: and it's all set up.

[1:29:45] Voice 9: Any conversation begins with,

[1:29:47] Voice 9: I think what Laura said,

[1:29:49] Voice 9: the question like,

[1:29:50] Voice 9: what are we trying to do?

[1:29:51] Voice 9: And then you examine the content

[1:29:55] Voice 9: and the settings.

[1:29:56] Voice 9: But I think we shouldn't,

[1:29:58] Voice 9: I'm very interested in it.

[1:30:00] Voice 9: i'm going off

[1:30:00] Voice 9: track a bit sorry

[1:30:01] Voice 4: chair just to be clear that's we're not offering what you asked

[1:30:05] Voice 4: about young forest right that that is not not the that's not an open offering to um the engagement

[1:30:13] Voice 4: process to identify okay well young forest is important and based on the values and they're

[1:30:18] Voice 4: and they're fair and valid and change that classification value that that wasn't because

[1:30:25] Voice 4: because we're saying that that classification value is protected practice so say if this was

[1:30:29] Voice 4: a major project and we were going through all those layers then those recommendations would

[1:30:34] Voice 4: be put back to the professional biologists and they would then just you know like justify changing

[1:30:40] Voice 4: that value so thank you for bringing those up because those are two different pieces and i

[1:30:45] Voice 4: think i think i hope that's clear now yeah sure not

[1:30:49] Voice 4: saying that it can't yeah sorry you

[1:30:51] Voice 9: can't

[1:30:52] Voice 9: touch the ones on the left

[1:30:54] Voice 4: maybe okay fair enough well no you can the ones on the left 100 you can

[1:30:58] Voice 4: the ones on the right we're we're restricting that practice however if this was opened into

[1:31:03] Voice 4: a wholesome process and we had a professional biologist on staff or as contracted and we went

[1:31:10] Voice 4: through this engagement process and and that and those values came from the community like we really

[1:31:13] Voice 4: care about our cliffs and we really because of these sensitive species that live there then

[1:31:20] Voice 4: then that can be modulated.

[1:31:22] Voice 4: But we're trying to say that that would need to be done

[1:31:24] Voice 4: by a professional biologist, not just by planning staff.

[1:31:28] Voice 9: Sure.

[1:31:28] Voice 9: Thanks.

[1:31:29] Voice 9: Okay, that's reasonable.

[1:31:30] Voice 9: Great, yeah.

[1:31:31] Voice 9: Thank you, thanks William.

[1:31:32] Voice 9: Okay, back to you Sam and then Stefan.

[1:31:34] Voice 9: And then I think we should consider closing this out.

[1:31:38] Voice 9: We have discussed it fairly extensively

[1:31:41] Voice 9: and I'm certainly beginning to repeat myself.

[1:31:44] Voice 9: So I think we should draw to a conclusion.

[1:31:47] Voice 9: So Sam and then Stefan, go ahead.

[1:31:51] Voice 5: yeah and i just want to appreciate what all the conversation that's been had um and and

[1:31:58] Voice 5: uh trustee patrick right now uh you know the that question of of you know what is this tool for

[1:32:06] Voice 5: um is is a key sort of question and so what i'm hearing from the discussion that was just had

[1:32:13] Voice 5: add is that, you know, as, and, and, and William Shulbaugh was, I think, correct to, to, to correct

[1:32:21] Voice 5: that, uh, is that it is about this, this was always intended to be a tool for, as, and as a

[1:32:29] Voice 5: trustee LADAC has put in here, aims to evaluate and support proactive land use planning and

[1:32:34] Voice 5: establish limits to growth using evidence-based data. That's what it's for. And I, that's, that's

[1:32:40] Voice 5: correct yeah and so i imagine at some point there was a point where staff are sitting around it's

[1:32:46] Voice 5: like okay we need a tool that will help us do this now broadly i think this is a collation of data

[1:32:52] Voice 5: that we already had um so it was about let's bring this all of this information together into a tool

[1:32:58] Voice 5: that we're able to then use to drive these discussions one way or another um because of

[1:33:04] Voice 5: the nature of waiting because it's not just raw data i think that's where it inherently brings in

[1:33:11] Voice 5: a political component and i am completely with william in that like the the uh the non there's

[1:33:16] Voice 5: certain data in here that is not discretional for community or for or for trustees needs to be

[1:33:22] Voice 5: evaluated objectively by a qualified professional those those things need to be informed completely

[1:33:28] Voice 5: nevertheless in terms of talking about what value they may have to a particular project

[1:33:34] Voice 5: project, that's still subjective. The data itself is not. The rigor with which it needs to be

[1:33:42] Voice 5: approached, not subjective. The value of those things and potentially the weighting here,

[1:33:47] Voice 5: not subjective. That is something that's subjective. That's something that is going

[1:33:52] Voice 5: to be interpreted on a use-by-use case. Again, in principle, all of that, I'm super down with.

[1:34:00] Voice 5: I think I can clearly see the utility of that in lots of cases.

[1:34:06] Voice 5: However, the thing and I think I think this is a case of we've got this cool idea about a thing we want to do.

[1:34:16] Voice 5: We've got a pretty good idea of how we're or we have we have some ideas about how we want to bring it together and do that.

[1:34:21] Voice 5: We're going to go ahead and do that because this is inherently going to have political ramifications,

[1:34:27] Voice 5: because this is going to always come back to political conversations because even on our

[1:34:31] Voice 5: islands i'm sure i'm sure everyone knows people who pull violently in opposite directions

[1:34:39] Voice 5: for very different reasons uh might be pulling violently in the same direction for wildly

[1:34:44] Voice 5: different reasons um you know we've you know i've got people who are wildly against things that are

[1:34:50] Voice 5: being suggested uh but they're coming from an extremely pro-development thing or an extreme

[1:34:56] Voice 5: extreme conservation thing. They both think the thing is wrong, but they want it to see it move

[1:35:00] Voice 5: in different directions. So we're always going to be in the middle of those conversations. That's

[1:35:03] Voice 5: the nature of this particular weird little government that we are. Um, and that's great.

[1:35:09] Voice 5: I mean, we're all here for it. We've all decided to be here one way or another. There are other

[1:35:13] Voice 5: places we could all be that I want to choose to believe that we all want to be doing this. Um,

[1:35:19] Voice 5: Um, because this, because there, because there are, because there is so much that is inherently

[1:35:27] Voice 5: political about the way this tool is going to be used, any use of this tool is going

[1:35:31] Voice 5: to have those political components.

[1:35:33] Voice 5: This is where I feel like it's, uh, it's suffered from not having insight from trustees from

[1:35:41] Voice 5: early on and from, from the initiating point and what I would have loved personally.

[1:35:46] Voice 5: And I think this initiated before our term or very early, if I think it may have come before. So it may just be, but it would be the sort of thing where it's like, at some point, this should have come to trustees and said, hey, we've had this really good idea. Do you mind if we go ahead and do this thing?

[1:36:02] Voice 5: and instead i from broadly what i understand and i can be corrected if i'm wrong here i don't know

[1:36:09] Voice 5: that that that's that point happened and so this has been i don't know how long uh i don't know

[1:36:20] Voice 5: well yeah i guess that's a good question when when did this when did the process to create

[1:36:24] Voice 5: what was the suitable land analysis is now the list begin when did this start

[1:36:29] Voice 5: Stefan if you've got I

[1:36:33] Voice 8: think the housing strategic action plan started four years ago and this was

[1:36:38] Voice 8: one or five years ago and this was started as one of the tools within it so okay

[1:36:42] Voice 5: so that's that's

[1:36:44] Voice 5: when and it and I like the the broader strategic like housing plan was a trustee driven thing

[1:36:50] Voice 5: absolutely um I know that this tool in particular was a was a was a project developed within that

[1:36:57] Voice 5: was it given a specific seal of approval at any point just and then i don't care one way or the

[1:37:05] Voice 5: other i'm just this is just information i

[1:37:07] Voice 8: will say if i may chair the objective and the action

[1:37:12] Voice 8: were both approved by trust council within the housing strategic action plan and the tools uh

[1:37:17] Voice 8: in the housing options toolkit were delivered um numerous times to the rpc for their consideration

[1:37:23] Voice 8: and deliberation up to and including the final delivery of this tool, which was one of the

[1:37:29] Voice 8: more delayed ones because of the amount of time it took and depth of work.

[1:37:34] Voice 8: So, yeah, I would think that Trust Council and RPC were well-versed all along the way.

[1:37:40] Voice 8: But perhaps what I can offer you is that RPC were not really included in the detailed work

[1:37:46] Voice 8: and consideration behind it because it was a professional technical.

[1:37:50] Voice 8: It is very technical.

[1:37:51] Voice 5: Absolutely.

[1:37:51] Voice 5: This should be.

[1:37:52] Voice 5: Sorry, Chair.

[1:37:52] Voice 5: Go ahead.

[1:37:54] Voice 9: So I'm just saying, can we think about wrapping this up a little bit?

[1:37:59] Voice 9: And I have a suggestion.

[1:38:00] Voice 9: Go ahead.

[1:38:01] Voice 9: Finish up, Sam, if you don't mind.

[1:38:03] Voice 5: I'll finish up.

[1:38:04] Voice 5: I think I want to just sort of bring to our broad attention, like, this has been a tool that's been in process for a long time, in development for a long time.

[1:38:16] Voice 5: It has presumably taken a lot of resources, of which, you know, we've pointed out correctly, we have limited.

[1:38:24] Voice 5: um the the the problems i think a lot of the problems that we're seeing in terms of communication

[1:38:30] Voice 5: around this i think come from the fact that this is inherently going to it's being treated as though

[1:38:36] Voice 5: it's just a technical tool it inherently has a political aim uh or an aim that that it has

[1:38:43] Voice 5: socio-political implications and i don't know that that has i don't know that we've been brought

[1:38:49] Voice 5: along for the ride in terms of helping set direction and i think that's where it's led

[1:38:55] Voice 5: to these issues um there are there are components to this that i think any one of us would just

[1:39:01] Voice 5: like the the the nature of our slightly different perspective on the work would have been able to

[1:39:06] Voice 5: say i think that might wind up being a problem um yeah i i i want to support

[1:39:13] Voice 5: the things here

[1:39:14] Voice 5: I'm done. That's fine. Thank

[1:39:19] Voice 9: you, Sam. Okay. We're going to have to be fairly quick. And then I

[1:39:28] Voice 9: suggest we round off. I think let's say for lunch in 10 minutes. So we've got 10 minutes in which to

[1:39:37] Voice 9: draw this to some kind of conclusion. Stefan, then William, Toby, and me.

[1:39:43] Voice 9: Thank

[1:39:45] Voice 8: you, Chair. Great discussion. So a few options. The Islands Trust Conservancy

[1:39:53] Voice 8: in the Regional Conservation Plan, their maps that they created, which I personally used to have

[1:40:00] Voice 8: posted all over my office, were the priority lands for conservation. And they had developed

[1:40:07] Voice 8: a methodology whereby to prioritize certain lands. And of course, I was in Salt Spring,

[1:40:11] Voice 8: I knew what those lands are and so I was always focused on that if those areas came up in the

[1:40:17] Voice 8: course of my work I would focus on that plant that data and the methodology creating that report

[1:40:25] Voice 8: was what I'm looking for it was shared with a professional other professional people at a third

[1:40:33] Voice 8: person review and had an external review and I think there might be an opportunity here we've

[1:40:37] Voice 8: developed a great product we're professionally we're very proud of it um but perhaps that's a

[1:40:42] Voice 8: product too that maybe uh you know i hear talk about terry martin ubc you know maybe we we get

[1:40:48] Voice 8: it that's sort of professional a third opinion from a professional assessment assuming that

[1:40:52] Voice 8: they've got hydrogeologists biologists etc other that or they can maybe just comment about the

[1:40:58] Voice 8: methodology so i offer that and and i will say that the island trust conservancy did that with

[1:41:04] Voice 8: their methodology but ironically how they created their map has been lost hence what created our need

[1:41:09] Voice 8: to create this methodology if that makes sense so we wanted to replicate how they did it and they

[1:41:14] Voice 8: couldn't so this is actually one of the reasons we led to what what we've done here if that makes

[1:41:19] Voice 8: sense i don't know if it makes sense and then finally one last thing again using island stress

[1:41:23] Voice 8: conservancy priority mapping as they regain that ability to create that priority map integrating

[1:41:29] Voice 8: Integrating that with this is the goal, is the dream in the organization that we can share all that GIS layer and then turn on layers as needed.

[1:41:36] Voice 8: But I think we're a ways from that.

[1:41:38] Voice 8: But anyways, I just want to share that background about ITC mapping methodology, et cetera.

[1:41:45] Voice 9: So I think the message is we're on a journey.

[1:41:47] Voice 9: We're not there yet.

[1:41:49] Voice 9: And I think we did launch it as though we were there.

[1:41:52] Voice 9: And going back over it, Stefan, I take a little bit of an issue.

[1:41:56] Voice 9: we didn't really get a full i hate that word fulsome but i'm going to use it a fulsome

[1:42:02] Voice 9: view into it and what it would be like we got a sort of a low key this is going to be really cool

[1:42:09] Voice 9: we got some pdfs and we all thought wow this is fabulous but we didn't really you know get our

[1:42:17] Voice 9: heads around it the complexity the data integration the data cleaning that was required etc etc

[1:42:24] Voice 9: et cetera, the classification. And I do appreciate all of that. The document is the first time I

[1:42:32] Voice 9: really got my head around all the aspects of it. Okay, go ahead, William. Keep it brief,

[1:42:38] Voice 9: please. And then Trustee Elliott.

[1:42:43] Voice 4: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think that it's Trustee Borthwick

[1:42:51] Voice 4: that has expressed the impasse here. I think I'm going to go back to this meeting and re-listen

[1:42:57] Voice 4: and and transcribe

[1:42:59] Voice 9: sorry william you're uh you're quite oh the volume is you're sorry your audio is

[1:43:07] Voice 9: is unclear for me anyway i don't know if it's for anybody else

[1:43:10] Voice 3: it was fine for me

[1:43:12] Voice 4: oh it was fine

[1:43:13] Voice 4: yes something happened there that was weird okay

[1:43:15] Voice 3: go ahead yeah

[1:43:16] Voice 4: so trustee borthwick actually

[1:43:18] Voice 4: summarized the tool more eloquently than i almost did there in his last discussion and um yeah i

[1:43:26] Voice 4: I appreciate that.

[1:43:27] Voice 4: And I think that you're getting to almost to describe your impasse, and we might have

[1:43:33] Voice 4: to unpack it a bit more.

[1:43:34] Voice 4: But I think what you're describing is that golden thread of how we bring technical science

[1:43:40] Voice 4: to planning and the implications of the social interactions within it.

[1:43:45] Voice 4: And yes, we can go to the province and say, your G wells, your wells are getting plotted

[1:43:50] Voice 4: in the ocean.

[1:43:51] Voice 4: What's going on?

[1:43:52] Voice 4: Let's fix those.

[1:43:52] Voice 4: And we will over time when we have.

[1:43:53] Voice 4: half. That data set's gotten a lot better in the last five years. But I still believe

[1:44:00] Voice 4: that the impasse is out there in what Trustee Borthwick was getting at. And that's where

[1:44:07] Voice 4: when speaking to or listening to Trustee Patrick, like where do we inject engagement the most?

[1:44:13] Voice 4: And I think if we do it there on how we're relating technical science and these technical

[1:44:19] Voice 4: projects to planning then the engagement goes both ways we can address the technical side and

[1:44:24] Voice 4: bring people along and increase water literacy and and how this work is informing planning

[1:44:32] Voice 4: and yeah I think you're almost there but I think we need a little bit more time to unpack your

[1:44:36] Voice 4: your concern because you understand the tool perfectly there's nothing more that I can

[1:44:42] Voice 4: educate you on a technical side to make you understand the tool more correctly so there's

[1:44:47] Voice 4: still an impasse so let's what is that and let's unpack that you know so yeah thank you okay thank

[1:44:56] Voice 9: thank you william and

[1:44:57] Voice 3: toby this is so exciting because i feel like we're doing through an actual

[1:45:02] Voice 3: group thing we're actually getting somewhere so well done committee um what you described william

[1:45:09] Voice 3: and maybe sam is coming at it from two different ends we came at it from the housing density

[1:45:15] Voice 3: city perspective then went through this funnel but on the other side there's this biodiversity

[1:45:21] Voice 3: conservation aspect um and going back to laura's question of what are we trying to achieve well

[1:45:28] Voice 3: this tool can potentially achieve both ends it's not properly named and coming out of the housing

[1:45:33] Voice 3: strategic plan that is too limited to what this actually could function as when i go back to

[1:45:40] Voice 3: Bowen Island Municipality had a presentation by their conservancy called the Biodiversity Plan,

[1:45:48] Voice 3: and it's incredible. I don't want to take us off track, but the way they described it

[1:45:55] Voice 3: is integrated conservation values that are calculated. It's a spatial conservation

[1:46:01] Voice 3: prioritization tool combining all species, habitat, and intactness layers to identify

[1:46:08] Voice 3: Identify where biodiversity is highest and where conservation efforts will have the greatest

[1:46:11] Voice 3: impact.

[1:46:12] Voice 3: Director Cermak just pointed to the regional conservation plan mapping priority areas for

[1:46:18] Voice 3: conservation and that was what this tool half identified.

[1:46:23] Voice 3: We've got sort of disturbed areas that are not intact versus, you know, relatively intact

[1:46:29] Voice 3: and that is identified as a high priority area for conservation.

[1:46:32] Voice 3: And so they made this presentation. The Bowen Council asked for the attached conservation values map to be incorporated into their OCP. And it was very, it's an incredible tool.

[1:46:48] Voice 3: So I sort of leave that there just to say, how can we come back to making this tool, it's not about the communication, it's about what sort of functions and what outputs could it perform, both on the biodiversity conservation side and on the identifying areas too.

[1:47:07] Voice 3: And I think it goes back to this definition. I had written it. It actually comes from our strategic plan direction 2.1, support proactive land use planning and establish limits to growth using evidence-based data.

[1:47:23] Voice 3: so list tool could be and it's about an evaluation tool to support proactive

[1:47:30] Voice 3: land use planning and establish limits to girls using evidence-based data and I

[1:47:34] Voice 3: think this should be the project that we undertake in lieu of finishing up that

[1:47:41] Voice 3: housing strategic action plan because this is actually the base layer for

[1:47:46] Voice 3: going to our next stage which is resiliency mapping and indicators of

[1:47:52] Voice 3: ecosystem health if i'm not mistaken this this is one tool with an output for that's useful for

[1:47:59] Voice 3: planning of where to put density and not density but it's a way of understanding the land and how

[1:48:05] Voice 3: it's evolved and all the social factors that are um that will provide that sort of indicator

[1:48:12] Voice 3: health resiliency mapping that we need to do so i had put a motion in that maybe we could take

[1:48:18] Voice 3: much time to think about it and if staff has advice around it but I think this

[1:48:24] Voice 3: should be the focus of our active project number three instead of the

[1:48:31] Voice 3: monitoring progress of protection of the ecosystem health and land use

[1:48:35] Voice 3: planning decisions that was kind of put on pause because we need to do more work

[1:48:39] Voice 3: but I think this is part of the work so just put that there for your

[1:48:43] Voice 3: consideration happy to have it amended it's not perfect as usual it's very

[1:48:48] Voice 3: very wordy.

[1:48:48] Voice 9: Yeah. So thanks, Toby. I think that's a really good idea. Well, I suggest if everybody

[1:48:55] Voice 9: is in agreement with this, the next item is to amend the active projects list. And Stefan,

[1:49:03] Voice 9: jump in if I'm heading off into the bushes on this. So this kind of belongs in there in that

[1:49:12] Voice 9: we're not going to adopt 7.1 blandly as is um we're going to you know amend it with this

[1:49:24] Voice 9: in mind so i suggest that we break for lunch for 30 minutes and we come back and jump into this

[1:49:33] Voice 9: how does everybody feel about that thumbs up down yeah because i think it's a lot to bite off i

[1:49:41] Voice 9: I think this has been a tremendously good discussion, you know, way beyond the actual

[1:49:47] Voice 9: two, but kind of it's been very philosophical and it's addressed important points of engagement,

[1:49:54] Voice 9: project planning, communication, all of those things.

[1:49:58] Voice 9: And the only thing I would like to suggest, and I don't think I need emotion for this,

[1:50:03] Voice 9: but William and Stefan, could you take the content, just a quick one, short term thing,

[1:50:09] Voice 9: take the content of the implementation section and meld it into the online information that's

[1:50:17] Voice 9: there about the list tool because i think that says it more strongly the limitations and what

[1:50:22] Voice 9: its intent is than what's there at the moment okay uh i'll

[1:50:27] Voice 9: leave you to chew on that no no

[1:50:30] Voice 9: answer required for lunch i

[1:50:33] Voice 4: just think that that's the recommendation in the report so

[1:50:36] Voice 4: So it likely needs a resolution.

[1:50:41] Voice 9: Okay.

[1:50:42] Voice 9: All right.

[1:50:42] Voice 9: Okay.

[1:50:43] Voice 9: Well, listen, let's come back together in 30 minutes.

[1:50:47] Voice 9: Okay.

[1:50:48] Voice 9: Thanks, Rob.

[1:50:49] Voice 9: If you could put something up, that would be great.

[2:02:27] Voice 10: Oh, sorry. Thanks.

[2:02:30] Voice 10: Hi, Sam.

[2:20:40] Voice 10: Hey,

[2:20:44] Voice 5: Maraid. How are you?

[2:20:45] Voice 5: Not too bad.

[2:20:47] Voice 9: How

[2:20:50] Voice 5: are things on Saturna?

[2:20:52] Voice 9: Very, very nice. It's a little bit windy today, but nice.

[2:20:58] Voice 9: And I'm monitoring the seawater temperature.

[2:21:01] Voice 9: I might go for a swim tomorrow, or not a swim, more a cold dip.

[2:21:06] Voice 9: Yeah,

[2:21:07] Voice 5: it's supposed to get warm this weekend, I think.

[2:21:11] Voice 5: yeah

[2:21:12] Voice 9: the sea water temperature funnily enough i've been looking at well you know environment

[2:21:17] Voice 9: canada has a few weather boys out and i'm just kind of interested because i think the temperature

[2:21:25] Voice 9: at the moment is not as similar from the temperature in the middle of the summer to be

[2:21:29] Voice 9: honest so it's

[2:21:31] Voice 5: kind of i mean it only fluctuates by a couple of degrees or a

[2:21:34] Voice 5: year yeah they were

[2:21:37] Voice 9: talking about 12 and 13 degrees

[2:21:39] Voice 9: these few days

[2:21:41] Voice 9: and I thought that's as warm

[2:21:43] Voice 9: as it sometimes is in the summer so

[2:21:45] Voice 9: we'll see. I'll report

[2:21:47] Voice 9: back. In fact you may hear me.

[2:21:50] Voice 5: Yeah well

[2:21:53] Voice 5: Yeah indeed.

[2:21:55] Voice 9: Okay guys we are

[2:21:57] Voice 9: at 12.30 which is

[2:21:59] Voice 9: 31 minutes since we

[2:22:02] Voice 9: dispersed

[2:22:03] Voice 9: and

[2:22:06] Voice 9: Toby

[2:22:06] Voice 9: Toby, I think, needs to be here, but we could have the discussion about the next item anyway and then pause for thought.

[2:22:15] Voice 9: And hopefully Toby would have joined us by then.

[2:22:21] Voice 9: So I'm acknowledging that there's emotion about the thing we just discussed, but we're just going to move on to 7.1, the work plan update request for decision.

[2:22:32] Voice 9: decision and yes we're going to remove the bylaw enforcement policies and we so I'm looking for

[2:22:50] Voice 9: thoughts and advice are we going to actually say replace it with the implement the housing

[2:22:55] Voice 9: strategic action plan or are we going to jump to item two which is draft a business case for

[2:23:03] Voice 9: something else which may become the um primary active project so that is the question and how

[2:23:14] Voice 9: do people feel about that open the floor stefan would that be completely mad or how would we would

[2:23:27] Voice 9: this make any kind of sense to you chair bullet i don't

[2:23:31] Voice 8: think i'm allowed to say things are mad

[2:23:33] Voice 8: But the recommendations there are, I think, very clear, I think, for, you know, I reported to Trust Council, and I said that, you know, I've been reporting along the way, once the bylaw enforcement compliance and enforcement policies are done, we'd like to put housing back up there.

[2:23:57] Voice 8: And so we have enough resources to do that.

[2:24:00] Voice 8: So that was just a matter of following up with what we said we would do.

[2:24:04] Voice 8: I'd leave it up to you if you wish to do that.

[2:24:07] Voice 8: There's a lot of reasons to do that.

[2:24:09] Voice 8: We can talk about that list tool as part of that.

[2:24:12] Voice 8: Secondly, the business case, though, is thinking to next term.

[2:24:17] Voice 8: So it would

[2:24:18] Voice 8: just be staff developing a business case for the next, you know,

[2:24:21] Voice 8: regional planning committee or trust council and regional planning committee to consider.

[2:24:25] Voice 8: And of course, from that, I, you know, I didn't give you any substantive recommendations, because there's, well, as per the report, you're following these key initiatives that have already sort of been prioritized and assigned through Trust Council.

[2:24:40] Voice 8: So I was just trying to work my way through them in a logical sequence. And that's what I've done. But the hard part for writing this report was in terms of next priorities or what the business cases are.

[2:24:53] Voice 8: it's kind of what we were talking about with the list and that is when we did the growth management

[2:24:58] Voice 8: business case last year there's a lot of back and forth about how to do that and ultimately it did

[2:25:04] Voice 8: not proceed and so I'm not sure how this committee would like to recommend to proceed on that so

[2:25:13] Voice 8: but I can answer your question I think top priorities to me it was pretty clear that

[2:25:17] Voice 8: that this committee wanted the housing strategic action plan

[2:25:22] Voice 8: to be worked upon again.

[2:25:24] Voice 8: And in terms of business cases for next term, I'm not sure.

[2:25:28] Voice 9: Okay, I see Toby has joined us.

[2:25:31] Voice 9: Toby, go ahead and then Sam.

[2:25:35] Voice 3: Sure, thanks for that summary, Director Cermak.

[2:25:39] Voice 3: Yeah, I agree with, I guess what you're saying is

[2:25:45] Voice 3: we already have direction for implementing

[2:25:48] Voice 3: implementing the housing strategic action plan and you're saying that the list tool sort of

[2:25:56] Voice 3: fulfills item 10 of that action plan so identifying where housing can be put. What I'm struggling with

[2:26:05] Voice 3: is how to make the bridge with this list tool from the action housing plan to what the next

[2:26:16] Voice 3: bullet is trying to cover off as in the starting the protection of ecosystem health in all land

[2:26:20] Voice 3: these final decisions so i would like to see um the bylaw enforcement project which is completed

[2:26:30] Voice 3: be replaced with something that is you know implementing action 10 and beginning work

[2:26:39] Voice 3: or action 10 of the items for the housing strategic action plan and beginning work on

[2:26:45] Voice 3: key initiative 2.1.2 developing the growth management planning framework because i think

[2:26:51] Voice 3: the list tool is part of that and that is going to grow into a multi-year um strategy hopefully

[2:27:00] Voice 3: if next council picks that up um but i think as we've discussed this sort of the list tool

[2:27:07] Voice 3: is bridging the information we need for planning but it's part of this larger

[2:27:14] Voice 3: project of developing the tools that would go into a growth management planning

[2:27:19] Voice 3: framework so I would suggest that we make a recommendation that council direct us to

[2:27:26] Voice 3: continue work on this list tools in fulfillment of the housing strategic

[2:27:31] Voice 3: action plan and in order to develop a growth management framework towards

[2:27:36] Voice 3: wards developing that so something between the two in this order thank you thanks thanks

[2:27:44] Voice 9: toby

[2:27:45] Voice 9: sam and then i'll comment myself and ask a question go ahead sam yeah

[2:27:51] Voice 5: so i think i largely

[2:27:52] Voice 5: agree with with trustee elliott um i you know i think um uh obviously uh the the next rpc next

[2:28:02] Voice 5: terms rpc may may throw this all out and change direction completely for poor stefan but

[2:28:09] Voice 5: But I think certainly based on, you know, the discussion we've had today and the sort of ongoing stuff around the list in particular, that would be a good thing for us to sort of dig into.

[2:28:23] Voice 5: It's not, I'd like it not to get lost in the shuffle.

[2:28:27] Voice 5: I think that's my key thing.

[2:28:28] Voice 5: Like, I think it does fall under, as Stefan was saying, like that it falls under this proposed motion here.

[2:28:37] Voice 5: um but i would like to make sure that the the the list discussion uh isn't lost just kind of purely

[2:28:44] Voice 5: from a um an institutional memory perspective we've been talking about this a lot we've been

[2:28:50] Voice 5: focusing on it if we can if we can get some some real good traction uh in the last little bits

[2:28:56] Voice 5: before the end of term that would be great and i would hope that that would propel it into to sort

[2:29:01] Voice 5: of being able to to sign off on an early next term because broadly i mean i think the tool itself is

[2:29:09] Voice 5: pretty much there um it's it's how it gets deployed and and the methodology for maintaining

[2:29:14] Voice 5: and and and running it is is now i think the key component that we're missing and i'd be keen to

[2:29:21] Voice 5: to move with in that direction okay

[2:29:25] Voice 9: i'll just um move to uh trustee patrick laura go ahead

[2:29:30] Voice 9: Well,

[2:29:32] Voice 1: yes and no. I mean, I went back. I know Director Cermak said the Trust Council was aware and carried along all along on this project. But yes and no. They, like us, had very high level information, a suitable land analysis using existing data.

[2:29:51] Voice 1: And I think that what, you know, what is.

[2:30:00] Voice 1: coming about is a very critical and important tool to help local trust committees make decisions

[2:30:08] Voice 1: and and i think there needs to be a bit of a you know project definition i think there needs to be

[2:30:13] Voice 1: some work is this buried as a high level action described within this overall plan or is this a

[2:30:20] Voice 1: project on its own are we satisfied with where it's ended up or does you know is there an

[2:30:25] Voice 1: opportunity to make something far more robust or different or you know what are our needs so

[2:30:30] Voice 1: I think there needs to be a bit of a project definition phase that goes through

[2:30:34] Voice 1: to really talk about what is needed. Is this the right thing?

[2:30:40] Voice 1: And, you know, is it a bigger project or something on its own?

[2:30:48] Voice 9: Yeah, just quickly in response to that,

[2:30:51] Voice 9: I feel that I like the idea of exploring how it can be used.

[2:30:58] Voice 9: And I like the idea of a project definition because I feel, you know, we've talked about, I think Ruben talked about broadly improving just capability tools in the organisation.

[2:31:14] Voice 9: And we've spoken about the different uses for the tool and the different flavours, whether it's about increasing density or highlighting areas for conservation.

[2:31:24] Voice 9: and there's also the whole you know growth um not growth it was the um key indicators what that

[2:31:34] Voice 9: would turn into resiliency you know i'm thinking about you know realistically where is there a land

[2:31:40] Voice 9: that is zoned for development that hasn't been developed on saturn those kind of layers can be

[2:31:46] Voice 9: brought in as well so i think and you know there's the trust programs they were focused on

[2:31:55] Voice 9: whatever we called a growth indicators or you know we've had these discussions before we swirl

[2:32:02] Voice 9: around and i think toby is right in that having a good way to visualize the data integrate the data

[2:32:10] Voice 9: data would really help and enable a lot of these other conversations and so I mean I think maybe

[2:32:19] Voice 9: this is the first step to ask for a kind of project definition phase but to include more

[2:32:25] Voice 9: people than just RPC because I think there are a lot of different angles on it that we aren't

[2:32:32] Voice 9: necessarily thinking of because our our walls are there so i think i don't know how to capture that

[2:32:41] Voice 9: other than by saying okay stephan make sure everybody else is kind of included in this

[2:32:46] Voice 9: conversation and with that i'll hand over to toby thank you i'm

[2:32:58] Voice 3: so sorry i didn't realize my hand

[2:33:00] Voice 3: was still up um i actually don't have anything further to add my recommendation is the bylaw

[2:33:06] Voice 3: enforcement project be replaced with this direction to develop the list tool in order to

[2:33:13] Voice 3: finish implementing the housing strategic action plan and start work on developing a planning

[2:33:20] Voice 3: framework for resilience here whatever that's called thanks so

[2:33:24] Voice 9: i'm going to ask stefan stefan

[2:33:26] Voice 9: can we do two things one is i'm asking is this a stepwise approach where we replace the um

[2:33:36] Voice 9: We do as recommended in item one, which is to remove the bylaw stuff and replace it with the housing strategic action.

[2:33:43] Voice 9: And then this here becomes a business case draft project definition for this proposal.

[2:33:58] Voice 9: Would that fit together?

[2:34:02] Voice 9: Well,

[2:34:06] Voice 8: to the chair, there seems to be multiple avenues being discussed. We're talking about the housing strategic action plan, and we're talking about the growth framework. We definitely have the housing strategic action plan well in play, but we have no growth framework yet. So that's kind of new work that we had business cases for, and I'm worried that Trust Council's resolution for no new work, I don't want to get blocked by that, so to speak.

[2:34:30] Voice 8: week so there's a couple different ways you could do it right you know staff's recommendation for

[2:34:36] Voice 8: list on the previous agenda item it was pretty solid and still stand by it about you know just

[2:34:42] Voice 8: improving the communications that we have for it post the methodology for transparency

[2:34:47] Voice 8: include what you were talking about chair about the implementation phase to make sure that

[2:34:52] Voice 8: that transparency of what the tool is stands and to have staff draft internal policies and

[2:34:58] Voice 8: mechanisms to make sure we don't misstep with how we use the tool as it currently exists because we

[2:35:05] Voice 8: will need to use tools some sort for now right so but then in regards to

[2:35:10] Voice 8: this what we're talking

[2:35:11] Voice 8: about in terms of the work program again staff definitely support the recommendations the first

[2:35:17] Voice 8: one of putting housing strategic action plan in which you have the list tool and by combining

[2:35:23] Voice 8: those two things and we can sort of get the regional planning team to prioritize that work.

[2:35:29] Voice 8: What I'm hearing though is a swing which has obviously been the base of the discussion to

[2:35:34] Voice 8: use this tool or at least use the base of this tool to explore it's like okay we've got this

[2:35:39] Voice 8: tool don't really like the way it is for everything can we use it for more for the

[2:35:45] Voice 8: growth plan growth management framework I think I heard you know in instances of using it for

[2:35:50] Voice 8: where they had sort of almost like an ecosystem indicator.

[2:35:53] Voice 8: And I'm also hearing, you know,

[2:35:54] Voice 8: UBC has a more sophisticated way of doing things.

[2:35:57] Voice 8: So I would recommend maybe,

[2:35:59] Voice 8: I like the resolutions that staff have put forward.

[2:36:01] Voice 8: Staff still support that.

[2:36:03] Voice 8: But in terms of next steps,

[2:36:05] Voice 8: perhaps you would like to have this staff draft

[2:36:07] Voice 8: a business case to use, to address using list,

[2:36:13] Voice 8: or let's just call it to use list,

[2:36:16] Voice 8: to explore, implement as a baseline tool

[2:36:20] Voice 8: to begin the growth you know planning of the growth management you know growth framework

[2:36:25] Voice 8: growth management planning framework oh gosh i forget the words uh but i think you get the idea

[2:36:29] Voice 8: of where i'm going with that so i

[2:36:31] Voice 8: the business drafting a business case will help this group

[2:36:34] Voice 8: flesh out um sort of options and stuff like that and again i think this this work you know we're

[2:36:41] Voice 8: towards the end of the term i don't know how far we'll get down that path so that's why the business

[2:36:44] Voice 8: case i think is the best case for it and that'll allow trust council to then deliberate about the

[2:36:49] Voice 8: growth management framework and how to pull in the ecosystem indicators and then that'll

[2:36:54] Voice 8: de facto pull in the other departments but that would be a slow rolling process to get us towards

[2:36:58] Voice 8: october

[2:37:00] Voice 9: okay uh thanks steph and sam um

[2:37:06] Voice 5: yeah i i i don't have a i don't have i'm not comfortable

[2:37:13] Voice 5: getting too lost in the weeds of sort of getting into communications around list before we've

[2:37:22] Voice 5: gotten to the point where we are doing as trustee patrick has talked about in terms of

[2:37:29] Voice 5: we need we like as much as the the mechanics of it might be well fleshed out at this point

[2:37:36] Voice 5: i don't think that the implementation and the purpose for it have been sufficiently explored

[2:37:45] Voice 5: with you know we have we have subject matter experts in terms of the technical

[2:37:48] Voice 5: data. We're very blessed in those departments. I think those people have been well and truly

[2:37:56] Voice 5: engaged with this tool. I think that the social political component, which is our area of

[2:38:04] Voice 5: expertise as trustees, has not been properly engaged in this process, and that's undermining

[2:38:12] Voice 5: its viability in the long term. I don't want to get into endorsing a communications plan for

[2:38:19] Voice 5: a tool that I don't get, they're still serious questions. And I think, you know, and I respect

[2:38:25] Voice 5: the chair's desire to sort of move that discussion along earlier. I think what we need, and I think

[2:38:31] Voice 5: my personal preference for this would be for us to single out that tool for some specific

[2:38:39] Voice 5: discussion around, okay, well, how is this going to get implemented? What is it going to be for?

[2:38:42] Voice 5: How are we going to maintain it? And get those questions answered. And then also,

[2:38:47] Voice 5: And then we can fully, with our full throat, endorse it. But I think that doesn't create new work. I think that still fits within work that's already existing. And thus we avoid the no new work directive, which is still needed for all the reasons it was initially adopted.

[2:39:09] Voice 5: adopted um but i'd like for us to drill down into this um and i i think there's discussion that

[2:39:15] Voice 5: needs to be had there before we can get into endorsing any sort of communication plan about it

[2:39:20] Voice 5: and i mean again in my personal opinion before it should be being implemented by staff i don't you

[2:39:28] Voice 5: you you are you are in charge of that director sermac and i'm not gonna i don't i do not wish

[2:39:33] Voice 5: to tell you how to suck eggs but i i i do think that there's i have serious reservations about

[2:39:39] Voice 5: using it until we've been able to flesh that stuff out and do as trustee patrick has been

[2:39:45] Voice 5: talking about in terms of project definition um i think that's what

[2:39:48] Voice 9: about yeah would you

[2:39:51] Voice 9: be in favor sam of uh uh trustees invited only webinar trustees and staff and it would be those

[2:40:01] Voice 9: interested to really

[2:40:02] Voice 9: look at this and talk it through uh

[2:40:05] Voice 5: so i've i've been in a lot of i've

[2:40:09] Voice 5: this this tool has been presented to me many times and i think because we were talking about earlier

[2:40:13] Voice 5: like i understand the tool itself um or you know and i understand the intent i think there's it's

[2:40:20] Voice 5: less a webinar and we need a workshop that is specifically going to address how this comes

[2:40:25] Voice 5: And I think that should be, I think that doesn't necessarily need to be a long process. And I would be hesitant to have staff just draft their idea of what that is. I think this needs to be something that is worked through with trustees specifically, not drafted by staff and presented to us and that for approval or not.

[2:40:51] Voice 5: Like, I think we need to actively be a part of that, of trying to come up with that thing. And because, and I think there's a world in which this wouldn't be the process. This was not advanced that way. It has been advanced in the way that it has. We're stuck with that.

[2:41:10] Voice 5: what I want to get to is to get to a point where we all really are on board with what we've created

[2:41:15] Voice 5: and understand what it's for and make sure that we've done it in the best possible way

[2:41:19] Voice 5: but this has been a very long project it has cost quite a lot of money there was a consultant

[2:41:24] Voice 5: there's been a long process and I'm not sure that there's been sufficient oversight and I

[2:41:29] Voice 5: want to make sure that I can endorse this full full-throatedly and I think that's a good project

[2:41:35] Voice 5: for the rpc for the next little bit um i think that would be i'd want to cap that off but

[2:41:41] Voice 9: what

[2:41:42] Voice 9: would you have are you okay well we come back so you think a workshop would be helpful um okay

[2:41:50] Voice 9: rpc plus plus trustees who are interested uh laura and then toby and we'll have to try and

[2:41:57] Voice 9: think of a way to move on just separate these things out one from the other go ahead yeah i'm

[2:42:03] Voice 1: I'm hesitant to say, yeah, go write a business case.

[2:42:05] Voice 1: We're writing a business case on what?

[2:42:07] Voice 1: We're back to this thing.

[2:42:08] Voice 1: So I think it is, whether you call it a workshop

[2:42:09] Voice 1: or a special meeting of this meeting

[2:42:11] Voice 1: or a committee of the whole of somebody,

[2:42:13] Voice 1: we need discussion.

[2:42:14] Voice 1: We need to spend some time talking about what it is.

[2:42:18] Voice 1: Maybe what we could focus on was

[2:42:20] Voice 1: what could staff bring to us to help that conversation?

[2:42:23] Voice 1: Maybe it's understanding more of the tool.

[2:42:25] Voice 1: Maybe it's seeing what others have.

[2:42:27] Voice 1: Maybe it's hearing from and seeing what the tool

[2:42:30] Voice 1: that Dr. Tara Martin bought and built us all those years ago.

[2:42:33] Voice 1: Maybe seeing some of this and getting the juices flowing and understanding what it is that we think we want, what is it, and what staff think they've provided us. I'm hearing a disconnect. I'll be frank. We're not on the same page. And that's a problem.

[2:42:50] Voice 1: problem. And I think that's, you're hearing a bunch of trustees that want to be on the same

[2:42:55] Voice 1: page. And it might be, you know, you've built the tool for your uses. It's an internal product.

[2:43:01] Voice 1: However, it shows up in our communities and we face the wrath for that. And that's where it

[2:43:08] Voice 1: crosses over. So what are we trying to do? Let's work, if it's a workshop or what it is, but let's

[2:43:14] Voice 1: spend some time really understanding and communicating what it is we want that is

[2:43:19] Voice 1: yeah

[2:43:21] Voice 9: i think you're right in that you've you've narrowed it down to the fact that we have a gap

[2:43:26] Voice 9: there's a gap between you know using it internally by planners and using it externally and we are in

[2:43:33] Voice 9: the middle and we're not able to really bridge that gap without more help okay toby hopefully

[2:43:42] Voice 9: you've got a magic word solution we're

[2:43:44] Voice 3: circling a little bit so but i think we all want the same

[2:43:48] Voice 3: thing we need to go back to trust council and ask for the directions so if that might be a request

[2:43:53] Voice 3: for a decision that you know you know staff compile the information on the list tool as the

[2:44:02] Voice 3: you know fulfillment of school 10 of the housing strategic election plans there's not new work

[2:44:10] Voice 3: and as a preparation for i don't want to use the word land use planning management framework

[2:44:21] Voice 3: this is what's getting us into trouble and where i worry it wouldn't be supported next

[2:44:28] Voice 3: term because people think this is all about where to put housing but it's only about increasing

[2:44:34] Voice 3: If we can somehow shift this conversation to conservation values, how conservation values are integrated into land use planning, that gives the better picture of the other side of this.

[2:44:51] Voice 3: that this is developing a coherent way of presenting information in all these different

[2:45:01] Voice 3: aspects so that we can both conserve and protect areas and identify areas they're suitable

[2:45:10] Voice 3: um that are suitable for development kinds of development so that's the what

[2:45:18] Voice 3: But it is bringing together in a spatial, whatever, values-based mapping framework that can be used for multiple different outputs.

[2:45:31] Voice 3: It's not just for where to put housing.

[2:45:34] Voice 3: So that's why I'm having trouble saying, let's just go back to implementing the Housing Security Action Plan.

[2:45:40] Voice 3: Because this lift tool has the potential, if it's better articulated, to identify things as conservation.

[2:45:47] Voice 3: And that's where people will find the value if you don't necessarily agree that a growth

[2:45:54] Voice 3: management planning framework is a good resource on this trust fund.

[2:45:58] Voice 3: So I would like to see us turn to Trust Council to provide a cost per decision about placing

[2:46:06] Voice 3: a by-law enforcement project with further work on development and implementation of

[2:46:12] Voice 3: a list tool as a means to you know developing that growth management

[2:46:20] Voice 3: framework but name it something different. Incorporating conservation

[2:46:25] Voice 3: values in land use management or land use planning.

[2:46:30] Voice 9: Yeah so so I have an idea

[2:46:33] Voice 9: which is we're stuck between we have this list tool which maybe is has been

[2:46:39] Voice 9: I mean, its purpose is kind of constrained and that's causing a problem.

[2:46:46] Voice 9: And it's a kind of a spin factor in some ways.

[2:46:49] Voice 9: So could we actually open the discussion on the basis that we have this tool, which we believe could have a wider use, and we'd like to have a kind of a workshop just to open it up to ideas and really have it.

[2:47:05] Voice 9: We're not launching this as is.

[2:47:07] Voice 9: we're opening it up asking for input and asking for opinions and and then like continue to use it

[2:47:17] Voice 9: on the basis of what was in that implementation guide about it's the starting point for discussion

[2:47:23] Voice 9: and keep it nested within the affordable housing or the housing options toolkit but open up a kind

[2:47:32] Voice 9: of a separate discussion which is to broaden the scope and the use of it potentially but reiterating

[2:47:40] Voice 9: we don't have hard-coded ideas about how that could work just really saying what do other people

[2:47:49] Voice 9: think uh stephan oh

[2:47:54] Voice 8: i'm off me uh thanks jerry sorry um i you know i i'm hearing you know the

[2:48:00] Voice 8: discomfort for some uh with use of this tool as is but i'm also hearing discussion to um

[2:48:08] Voice 8: use this tool in ways that it wasn't sort of designed for right you know the growth management

[2:48:12] Voice 8: framework in a larger sense although it's a small component of that or to incorporate uh more uh

[2:48:18] Voice 8: data from all different sources won't even dive too far and and the desire then to engage with

[2:48:25] Voice 8: elected officials to start with for saying, what is this tool? How is it used? What do we want?

[2:48:31] Voice 8: How can we change it? And I think that's an excellent thing to do. I think we were trying

[2:48:36] Voice 8: to get their last trust counsel with the business cases in terms of the list of all the different

[2:48:42] Voice 8: maps that we were trying to get. So you'll recall there was a whole series of maps we were trying

[2:48:45] Voice 8: to incorporate so that we could put it into this data set, which we don't have or which we want to

[2:48:50] Voice 8: update so but i do caution you at where you were where we are in the term doing all this engagement

[2:48:56] Voice 8: we don't really have any runway to do that so it's kind of you can make that recommendation

[2:49:01] Voice 8: to trust council and we can certainly push forward that way and i certainly think that's

[2:49:05] Voice 8: the right direction staff are definitely supportive of that i just want to caution that

[2:49:09] Voice 8: you know there's limitations that we have within this current term and as we get into august as

[2:49:14] Voice 8: you know and stuff like that it is may so um the likelihood of us getting very far in that

[2:49:19] Voice 8: that direction is very low however you could get trust council support to go that way and again

[2:49:25] Voice 8: probably early in the new term and i think there's some synergies there with getting somebody like

[2:49:31] Voice 8: tara martin to review it from her perspective i think there's synergy to have their communications

[2:49:35] Voice 8: with elected officials of what type of mapping they want i've we've all heard many issues about

[2:49:40] Voice 8: supporting itc with mapping but i just want to put that caution out there i want to be

[2:49:44] Voice 8: you know honest about their how much time and resources we have before the end of the term

[2:49:48] Voice 8: Yeah,

[2:49:51] Voice 9: I kind of understand it, Sam. And I'm looking, can I just say, I'm looking at, we have two actions in front of us. One, update the active projects list. Secondly, how do we keep momentum up for the soon to be renamed expanded capacity list tool without breaking it or breaking any more engagement opportunities?

[2:50:16] Voice 9: opportunities and maybe we shouldn't go direct you know active project blah blah we should just

[2:50:24] Voice 9: ask trust council to have a have a discussion or to keep it on the list or to trust council

[2:50:33] Voice 9: to sort of endorse expanding the use or review exploring further use and sam so

[2:50:42] Voice 5: i i think we

[2:50:43] Voice 5: really need i want to go back to what uh william was talking about and and what i think stefan was

[2:50:51] Voice 5: just talking about in terms of i understand the the desire to reimagine this tool for other

[2:50:59] Voice 5: purposes um i don't think that that's necessarily helpful that as william was saying like a tool is

[2:51:06] Voice 5: developed for a purpose um i what i what i think needs to instead of sort of looking at how to

[2:51:15] Voice 5: you know broaden the scope of this or debate that or do a lot of engagement around what is the

[2:51:21] Voice 5: purpose for this i would rather that we get get into the process of of what i think broadly should

[2:51:31] Voice 5: have happened in with this in the beginning which is is a lot of what trustee patrick is talking

[2:51:36] Voice 5: talking about in terms of what is it for get really clear about what is it for evaluate the

[2:51:43] Voice 5: degree to which it is achieving those aims and then work on developing the framework for how

[2:51:48] Voice 5: it gets maintained and and developed or used and and i again i think and i i appreciate

[2:51:57] Voice 5: stefan's comment on this but i i i really don't think that we should be i think we we are going

[2:52:04] Voice 5: going to continue to have gabriola explosions if we don't get ahead of this conceptual concept

[2:52:12] Voice 5: around the tool and and or and and the direction that what it is what its purpose is um i don't

[2:52:19] Voice 5: necessarily think that that needs to be i don't necessarily want to bring i don't want to do a

[2:52:25] Voice 5: committee of the whole on this um i like i don't know that that's helpful i think that that it

[2:52:30] Voice 5: would be a we'd have to be going all the way back to to brass tacks i think the people who are in

[2:52:34] Voice 5: in this committee, whose job it is to oversee this, to work with, Director Cermak and staff

[2:52:42] Voice 5: have spent a lot of time engaging with this tool. We know the stuff about it. We don't have to ask

[2:52:47] Voice 5: staff to collate the data. William did it. It's great. The report is all here. The information

[2:52:52] Voice 5: is in front of us from that perspective. The information we don't have is the socio-political

[2:53:03] Voice 5: mandate to for this this tool what is it for how are we going to use it how is it going to be

[2:53:08] Voice 5: maintained how are we how are we ensuring that it is doing the job that it's doing and i perhaps

[2:53:14] Voice 5: trusty patrick can sort of weigh in here and help me sort of try and grasp with what that is but i

[2:53:19] Voice 5: think i think in terms of uh um i don't know that we can use it before we've done that work

[2:53:27] Voice 5: and i don't and i don't i i understand that there's differences of opinion there

[2:53:32] Voice 11: I

[2:53:33] Voice 5: think that's really important for us to wrestle with and grasp with. And I don't necessarily think that there's a ton of external work that needs to happen with the exception of, you know, I think Dr. Martin, you know, being able to or sort of examining some of that would be valuable.

[2:53:48] Voice 5: but i think tying into that a little bit and i see that trustee patrick's put something in the

[2:53:54] Voice 5: chat so i'm going to ask if she wants to weigh in at all but i i don't

[2:54:00] Voice 1: want to get into

[2:54:00] Voice 5: broadening

[2:54:01] Voice 5: the scope of this tool i don't think that's what it's for and i think that uh undervalues the work

[2:54:06] Voice 5: that's already been done which is extremely valuable and it needs to be given firm direction

[2:54:13] Voice 5: and grounding from our perspective as well okay

[2:54:20] Voice 9: okay and Laura I see what you've done and and I

[2:54:24] Voice 9: appreciate it I think that's a good way forward I think we've we've done this storming norming

[2:54:30] Voice 9: we've expanded the scope we need to shrink it back and I've probably not helped by um not

[2:54:37] Voice 9: finishing this off in one step and mixing it up with the next step so Laura over to you bring

[2:54:44] Voice 9: I

[2:54:45] Voice 1: can't make a motion, but I did throw what could be a motion in there.

[2:54:50] Voice 1: I'm hearing staff.

[2:54:51] Voice 1: If we just leave this today, then we're just have communications options.

[2:54:55] Voice 1: I think as a committee, I'm hearing quite broadly that we want to see formalized engagement

[2:55:01] Voice 1: with our communities on the implementation of the tool.

[2:55:04] Voice 1: So at a minimum, I think we should consider a motion like I threw in the chat, if any

[2:55:08] Voice 1: And if any of you are interested in that or play with that or change that, that we couple at least one or more of the options that have been provided for that staff report with an engagement process and ask staff to come back with more options on how to make this process more transparent and on the input and methodology.

[2:55:32] Voice 1: So, I'll leave that up to any of the other trustees that wish to take that because I'm ex officio and I cannot make a motion. But if I could, I would be making something along those lines.

[2:55:42] Voice 1: so

[2:55:46] Voice 9: what you're suggesting is that the material that we've been presented with

[2:55:52] Voice 9: and the recommendations i don't particularly like the recommendations that are there but i do like

[2:55:58] Voice 9: the content that was presented that you know the particularly the technical staff briefing material

[2:56:06] Voice 9: material so it's to take all of that material and to turn it into a formal engagement process

[2:56:16] Voice 9: and do you want them do you want an example worked through with a particular island or just a

[2:56:22] Voice 9: conceptual one i'm just saying

[2:56:24] Voice 1: include you know don't just look at communications include an

[2:56:28] Voice 1: engagement process and um and you know that needs to be developed you know what does that what does

[2:56:34] Voice 1: does that look like so

[2:56:37] Voice 9: something along the lines of if you were developing an ocp this is what we

[2:56:41] Voice 9: would do if you're going

[2:56:45] Voice 1: to use this tool to develop an ocp this is how we're going to engage

[2:56:49] Voice 1: your community on this you know the the weighting the identification use of this tool and

[2:56:57] Voice 9: i had that

[2:56:57] Voice 9: as a kind of a i like to talk about a use case where you actually work through an example

[2:57:03] Voice 9: example to illustrate how something could be used.

[2:57:10] Voice 9: OK, is anybody prepared to take this motion, recraft it and present it?

[2:57:17] Voice 9: Toby, would you like to do that or would you merge it with you?

[2:57:22] Voice 9: I'm floundering here, guys.

[2:57:24] Voice 9: I know I'm the chair and I should lead you briskly along, but I'm floundering.

[2:57:28] Voice 9: so um toby would you like to comment on this suggestion okay so what i'm hearing generally

[2:57:42] Voice 9: is that we want to pause and focus on the list tool as is and that could be i'm prepared to

[2:57:53] Voice 9: recraft this um motion and maybe laura would you stick that motion in a whatsapp to me and i

[2:58:01] Voice 9: I recraft it and propose it and in the meantime I think we should go to the uh make the motions to

[2:58:11] Voice 9: do as recommended by staff um that we replace the um the bylaw stuff with the housing strategic

[2:58:23] Voice 9: action plan how about that thumbs up down okay that's what we're going to do so let's move to

[2:58:34] Voice 9: 7.4

[2:58:36] Voice 9: work plan update

[2:58:38] Voice 9: request for decision

[2:58:41] Voice 9: and

[2:58:43] Voice 9: could somebody

[2:58:45] Voice 9: move or create that motion

[2:58:48] Voice 9: while I

[2:58:50] Voice 9: look at the content of

[2:58:52] Voice 9: the other motion

[2:58:53] Voice 9: excuse me

[2:58:59] Voice 9: Chair I think

[2:59:02] Voice 5: Trustee Graham has his hand up

[2:59:03] Voice 9: okay Trustee Graham go ahead

[2:59:06] Voice 9: Thank

[2:59:07] Voice 7: you, Trista Berthwick, and thank you, Chair. I actually want to step back and just, I quite like the motion that was put forward by Trustee Elliott. Sorry about that. You know, I mean, we didn't really get a chance to consider that motion, unless if we did, I was sound asleep, but I don't think I was.

[2:59:34] Voice 7: Yeah. So, I mean, you seem, we seem a bit lost. I'm willing to put that motion on the floor. So

[2:59:41] Voice 7: at least we can have a whack at it. So

[2:59:44] Voice 9: I'm here. Yeah,

[2:59:46] Voice 7: it's up in

[2:59:46] Voice 9: front of us now. Well,

[2:59:48] Voice 9: let's have a look at it for a moment. Okay,

[2:59:50] Voice 7: have a look at it.

[2:59:51] Voice 9: Because maybe we can

[2:59:53] Voice 9: amend it and square all of the circles, etc. So let's read.

[3:00:00] Voice 9: this first and then we'll consider what uh laura proposed and maybe we can bring the two together

[3:00:08] Voice 9: before we before we amend the amended etc so um i'll read it out given that uh toby isn't

[3:00:16] Voice 9: online or maybe i'm here now

[3:00:19] Voice 9: okay do you want to read out your motion and we're not going to

[3:00:23] Voice 9: second it or whatever we're just going to think about it and think about what Laura proposed as

[3:00:31] Voice 9: well and then come to some sort of sweet spot in the middle okay

[3:00:35] Voice 3: I move that regional planning

[3:00:37] Voice 3: committee recommends that trust council direct regional planning committee to undertake an active

[3:00:43] Voice 3: project to address strategic plan direction 2.1 support for active land use planning and establish

[3:00:50] Voice 3: limits to growth using evidence-based data by developing the land information screening tool,

[3:00:55] Voice 3: list policies, procedures, and speed of communication,

[3:01:01] Voice 3: something speed of communication tools, and make this, well, yeah, yeah,

[3:01:07] Voice 3: project so and you could just eliminate make this project just and replace to monitor to replace

[3:01:23] Voice 3: I'm

[3:01:24] Voice 7: sorry, but there seems to be extra chatter and I wasn't able to follow that.

[3:01:29] Voice 3: Oh, I apologize. Sorry, perhaps you could reach out.

[3:01:43] Voice 9: So, Laura, there is the suite of communications tools. Would that include your engagement?

[3:01:55] Voice 9: I

[3:01:56] Voice 1: would not mix communication engagement they are two distinct and different things

[3:02:01] Voice 1: um I think we're trying to do two different things I think I think it might be okay if if um

[3:02:08] Voice 1: if we say that you know we recommend a priority project for this committee be undertaking

[3:02:15] Voice 1: taking um the work to do to address strategic plan direction 2.1 i less i think by saying the

[3:02:25] Voice 1: list tool is the product to do this i think goes too far i think that's where you know staff would

[3:02:30] Voice 1: be working with options and all of those things so i think it's either make that project our

[3:02:34] Voice 1: priority period and we can you know work on fleshing that out and what that looks like

[3:02:41] Voice 1: My motion is more, you know, this tool exists and the staff are going to use it.

[3:02:47] Voice 1: So, my recommendation is that we, you know, ask that we formalize the engagement piece that goes with the tool that exists today.

[3:02:56] Voice 1: So, I think we got two things going on. That's how I'm looking at it.

[3:03:00] Voice 1: So

[3:03:01] Voice 9: if we cut off this motion here after evidence-based data full stop and said, you know, to create a priority project to address strategic plan direction 2.1, would that work?

[3:03:24] Voice 9: work and Toby might think no no no that doesn't work at all what do you think Toby just take it

[3:03:31] Voice 9: down to the bare bones um

[3:03:35] Voice 3: I agree this so strategic plan direction has three different

[3:03:42] Voice 3: different initiatives in it one of which was I think involved at the housing strategic action

[3:03:49] Voice 3: plan and inside that is, you know, this list tool. So this is a broad direction, but I guess I'd ask staff's advice if, first of all, undertaking an active project of, you know, to develop the list tool, does that address, you know, Strat Plan Direction 2.1? I guess that's my question mark.

[3:04:20] Voice 9: Okay. It could be by considering. But go ahead, Sam.

[3:04:26] Voice 5: Well, I think I err on the side of what Trustee Patrick is saying in that it goes too far to specify the list as part of this, I think.

[3:04:36] Voice 5: And this is partly just where we are in the day in the meeting.

[3:04:41] Voice 5: But I'd like to sort of try and keep these streams a little bit separate.

[3:04:45] Voice 5: separate. Director Cermak has asked us specifically in the RFD, you know, to identify

[3:04:57] Voice 5: what we're replacing on the work plan. I think we should keep it simple on that. Let's keep that

[3:05:02] Voice 5: straightforward. And I think we need to find another, like, that's a piece of business that

[3:05:08] Voice 5: needs to happen regardless. I think we need to find another way to communicate that we want to

[3:05:12] Voice 5: to dive deeper in on the list. I think there's, as Trustee Elliott was just saying, there's other

[3:05:20] Voice 5: work that falls under 2.1 that, you know, I think is still important for us to direct staff to sort

[3:05:27] Voice 5: of focus on. But I think, and I would hope by this conversation that Director Cermak understands

[3:05:34] Voice 5: that, like, I think we all know that we want to have more of a conversation about the list tool.

[3:05:38] Voice 5: I think that's a separate thing than this specific motion.

[3:05:41] Voice 5: So I would probably do this, as Trustee Patrick is suggesting, and sort of calve that off.

[3:05:46] Voice 5: And as you said, Chair, I think cutting it off after evidence-based data is probably fine with me.

[3:05:54] Voice 5: And then I think we find another motion by which to specify how we want to approach the list tool.

[3:06:03] Voice 9: Okay. So, Trustee Graham, you asked for this to be back on the table.

[3:06:07] Voice 9: Would you like to speak to the current condition?

[3:06:10] Voice 7: Oh, no, I can see some merit in not tying the development of the land information screening tool to the broader subject of Strategic Plan Direction 2.1.

[3:06:27] Voice 7: So, yeah, let's try that motion without the list added.

[3:06:35] Voice 9: Yeah, so we have potentially three things that are going to happen.

[3:06:41] Voice 9: Number one, we will go back to Laura's motion on how to marry the recommendations with an engagement strategy for the list two.

[3:06:54] Voice 9: Number two, we will remove the bylaw enforcement policy and put in the housing action plan.

[3:07:00] Voice 9: and number three and not in that order we will um vote on this motion which is to be severed at

[3:07:09] Voice 9: evidence-based data full stop unless toby you want to add a little more in than that

[3:07:15] Voice 9: but i propose that we sever it there what do you think okay stefan go ahead i'm good with that

[3:07:27] Voice 9: Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

[3:07:30] Voice 8: If I may, so totally logical how you laid that out. I appreciate it.

[3:07:37] Voice 8: As you know, RPC has a limited number of projects it can have as active. So just want to quickly

[3:07:44] Voice 8: review that because we're doing multiple things at once. You remove bylaw enforcement, you're

[3:07:48] Voice 8: putting a housing strategic action plan back in, you still have fresh water sustainability,

[3:07:53] Voice 8: and you still have monitor progress protection of ecosystem health and all land use planning

[3:07:57] Voice 8: planning decisions. And I would suggest there's two reasons. I mean, that is already there,

[3:08:02] Voice 8: but there's two reasons to keep it. And that is you still have not received that final report

[3:08:06] Voice 8: that the biologist did. She gave you a summary of her work, but the actual work is yet to come.

[3:08:11] Voice 8: And I'm sorry for that delay. I think you all know why I wasn't able to get to it in the last month.

[3:08:16] Voice 8: And then, and there's also the matter of trust council's resolution regarding

[3:08:21] Voice 8: Tara Martin, UBC lab and integrating biology. And we haven't had time to wrap our heads around

[3:08:26] Voice 8: how to do that so that's an active project so that's kind of three so what i'm seeing here is

[3:08:31] Voice 8: you know taking sort of next direction and asking for growth management to be a top priority in my

[3:08:38] Voice 11: mind what

[3:08:39] Voice 8: you're asking trust council is to make growth management your next top priority and

[3:08:44] Voice 8: that's kind of what i'm hearing okay so

[3:08:47] Voice 9: we are asking you to put it on a proposed priority

[3:08:52] Voice 9: priority project list effectively and

[3:08:55] Voice 8: it is already there with respect to our chair and it

[3:08:58] Voice 8: is already sort of designated as sort of next in line but i think your signal would be of all the

[3:09:06] Voice 8: next in lines you want this one to be number one do you know me i like that that steps up to the

[3:09:11] Voice 8: plate as being at the next

[3:09:12] Voice 8: priority and if you want more details about how staff can report back

[3:09:15] Voice 8: about things then you can make those resolutions so

[3:09:20] Voice 9: do we do we need to say something like to

[3:09:23] Voice 9: make this project a priority in the forthcoming changes that might happen do we need this at all

[3:09:35] Voice 8: not necessarily but i think it helps trust council to know that that's what rpc wants to focus on so

[3:09:41] Voice 8: i with respect i would think yes that

[3:09:42] Voice 8: would help but secondly the um if you want to work on it now

[3:09:46] Voice 8: now, then I would sort of suggest you take something else off. And you've already got

[3:09:51] Voice 8: fresh water sustainability well underway with the contract. Like I said, you still have

[3:09:56] Voice 11: biology outstanding. And then

[3:09:59] Voice 9: the housing action

[3:09:59] Voice 8: plan is this list. So, you know, you

[3:10:02] Voice 8: kind of...

[3:10:03] Voice 9: So, we can't take those two. We can't take off the two other items. So, we can't replace

[3:10:08] Voice 9: them. Basically, we're switching horses in midstream. So, the only thing we can do is

[3:10:13] Voice 9: keep this on the list once one of those uh completes so for instance if the monitor

[3:10:20] Voice 9: progress of protection ecosystem health completes then we should replace it with this would that be

[3:10:28] Voice 9: a reasonable thing to say i

[3:10:30] Voice 8: suppose i mean there is another alternative whereby this is in the

[3:10:34] Voice 8: housing strategic action plan and you could use that you could amend the action plan or recommend

[3:10:38] Voice 8: in the action plan such that you have a formal engagement process about it type thing so and I

[3:10:44] Voice 8: think that'd be the the cleanest way to maybe do it but it doesn't expand its use right so if you've

[3:10:49] Voice 8: got you take the resolution

[3:10:51] Voice 8: to put housing strategic action plan as your you know top

[3:10:55] Voice 8: priority and staff come back and that the key action that you want to work on that is this

[3:11:00] Voice 8: tool about suitable land analysis um okay

[3:11:04] Voice 9: yeah

[3:11:05] Voice 8: sorry now i'm

[3:11:06] Voice 9: so okay but i propose and we're

[3:11:08] Voice 9: going to do this okay no i've got a proposal which is we are going to uh replace we're going

[3:11:20] Voice 9: to remove bylaw we're going to replace it with a strategic strategic housing strategic action plan

[3:11:25] Voice 9: plan, comma, with a desire to focus on strategic plan direction 2.1. Does that work? So we're

[3:11:43] Voice 9: putting the housing action plan back in, and we're going to ask that strategic action 2.1

[3:11:52] Voice 9: is the main focus within that. With

[3:11:58] Voice 8: respect, the Trust Council just updated

[3:12:00] Voice 8: the strategic action plan to put implement the housing strategic action plan as key initiative

[3:12:04] Voice 8: 2.3.2 so it's already captured into the 2.3.2 area so you'd be okay

[3:12:12] Voice 9: I may have a meltdown I

[3:12:14] Voice 9: may have to go out into the garden for five minutes but anyway Laura go ahead I think we're

[3:12:21] Voice 1: overworking this um yeah

[3:12:23] Voice 9: at this time of day when our

[3:12:25] Voice 1: brain cells aren't functioning 100% either

[3:12:27] Voice 1: there um i i i think it's okay to keep it higher level and and i think it's okay to call this out

[3:12:34] Voice 1: specifically rather than burying it into the housing action plan because as you know we we

[3:12:39] Voice 1: know as we've all react heard the reactions in our communities it's we understand when we look

[3:12:45] Voice 1: at housing we're looking at the complete picture it's the environmental impacts of where the housing

[3:12:49] Voice 1: goes and all of that but that's not what our community always hears when we say the word

[3:12:53] Voice 1: housing. So I think it's okay to leave it separately. And I think it's okay to do some

[3:12:58] Voice 1: brainstorming as it gets developed. And, you know, there could be aspects of, you know, how we talk

[3:13:04] Voice 1: about and communicate with UBC might have an element of this project, or it might have an

[3:13:10] Voice 1: element of the reporting of the resiliency indicators. There may be other things, you know,

[3:13:15] Voice 1: from the strategic plan as it gets developed. So I think it's keep it high level, and more time's

[3:13:20] Voice 1: going to have to be spent to flush flush out this project going forward okay

[3:13:26] Voice 9: but the specifics of

[3:13:28] Voice 9: the motion you want that motion still there but what should we direct um do do we need a motion

[3:13:37] Voice 9: about strategic plan key initiative oh i

[3:13:41] Voice 1: i would include that we're

[3:13:43] Voice 1: the request of trust council

[3:13:45] Voice 1: so that we have the the growth management be um a priority as well don't embed the two together

[3:13:52] Voice 1: is my suggestion okay

[3:13:55] Voice 9: so back up then let's deal with these one thing one one at a time so the

[3:14:01] Voice 9: first thing we're going to do is the work plan update um and um i will make the motion just to

[3:14:13] Voice 9: to restore confidence in my ability to lead us out of this quagmire.

[3:14:21] Voice 9: I move that the Regional Planning Committee amends its active projects list

[3:14:26] Voice 9: by replacing completed Trust Council Strategic Plan Key Initiative 1.2.3,

[3:14:33] Voice 9: improved by-law enforcement policies and procedures to be administratively fair,

[3:14:37] Voice 9: reasonable and transparent, with the aim of restoring public confidence

[3:14:41] Voice 9: with trust council strategic plan sorry comma with trust council strategic plan key initiative

[3:14:48] Voice 9: 2.3.2 implement the housing strategic action plan so i have moved that and trustee graham

[3:15:02] Voice 9: you have seconded it i

[3:15:03] Voice 7: have thank you

[3:15:06] Voice 9: very much and i call the vote everybody in favor please

[3:15:10] Voice 9: please raise your hands and lower your hands.

[3:15:23] Voice 9: Anybody not in favor, please raise your hands.

[3:15:30] Voice 9: Okay, so that carries.

[3:15:35] Voice 9: Let's go back up now.

[3:15:37] Voice 9: Sorry for jumping around, but Laura, would you like to make...

[3:15:41] Voice 9: I

[3:15:42] Voice 1: can't make a motion.

[3:15:43] Voice 1: I do have a thought.

[3:15:46] Voice 1: I think if you were to make the motion that we had the severed one up above

[3:15:50] Voice 1: about making the growth management one,

[3:15:52] Voice 1: asking Trust Council to make it a priority,

[3:15:55] Voice 1: then I think instead of,

[3:15:57] Voice 1: I don't think we're ready to ask staff

[3:15:58] Voice 1: to go start working on business cases.

[3:16:01] Voice 1: We either need a special meeting

[3:16:02] Voice 1: or we need a workshop, brainstorm,

[3:16:04] Voice 1: whatever you want to call it,

[3:16:06] Voice 1: to talk about what could these projects be

[3:16:08] Voice 1: before staff go off and spend time

[3:16:11] Voice 1: writing a thesis on a business case.

[3:16:14] Voice 1: We don't know what those are yet.

[3:16:16] Voice 1: but

[3:16:17] Voice 9: is it appropriate that we as this regional planning committee do that yes okay so but the

[3:16:28] Voice 9: next meeting isn't for quite a while so should we have a special meeting specifically to tackle this

[3:16:36] Voice 9: what do you think stefan just a sort of a brainstorm about projects nest projects which

[3:16:47] Voice 9: what to focus on I

[3:16:49] Voice 8: think that meeting should happen I would encourage that if the RPC is

[3:16:53] Voice 8: going to do it maybe even invite that you know we've heard similar from last term the or last

[3:16:58] Voice 8: term last year from the trust programs committee maybe a joint meeting of sorts or something like

[3:17:04] Voice 8: that or maybe just open it up but I am conscious of course again I'll repeat we're in May and we

[3:17:10] Voice 8: go to collection soon so if you're going to have a meeting you know maybe to discuss you know

[3:17:16] Voice 8: what this map is what mapping you want and how do we go from what we have to where we want to go

[3:17:22] Voice 8: extremely valuable only the elected officials i think can do that so and then from there you can

[3:17:27] Voice 8: ask the community if you want to go out there so that initial meeting um i would hate to warm up

[3:17:32] Voice 8: the engine and then go to election and then who knows where we come so i leave it up to you to

[3:17:37] Voice 8: make that decision but i think the meeting is worthwhile i'm not sure in terms of when we would

[3:17:42] Voice 8: schedule it, but if you make the resolution, we're here to help.

[3:17:46] Voice 9: Okay, go ahead, Laura.

[3:17:48] Voice 1: We're going to recommend business cases. Like it or not, we are making some direction. We're not

[3:17:53] Voice 1: fettering a future local trust council's decision, but we are going to be recommending business

[3:17:57] Voice 1: cases. The business case or the budget development process is well underway when the new trust

[3:18:03] Voice 1: council comes in. So it is worth it for this group to spend some time really trying to articulate

[3:18:08] Voice 1: this. Yes, a future trust counsel could go left if we recommend right. But it's worth taking the

[3:18:15] Voice 1: time. I

[3:18:23] Voice 9: agree because in my experience as a new trustee, my ability to come up with ideas and

[3:18:31] Voice 9: business cases was either galactic or zero. And some guidance from the previous trust counsel

[3:18:39] Voice 9: would be helpful, just to kind of constrain you and make you feel that you were picking up

[3:18:44] Voice 9: the baton rather than having to redesign the wheel or whatever so i think it would be really helpful

[3:18:51] Voice 9: and at the end of our term is when we're probably most useful in terms of thought processes and

[3:18:56] Voice 9: ideas and practicalities so we should take advantage of that so i will i propose if we

[3:19:04] Voice 9: should have a joint um meeting with uh trust programs and beyond but especially just programs

[3:19:12] Voice 9: because I think we overlapped with them a few times

[3:19:15] Voice 9: and it took a while to pull the threads back together.

[3:19:19] Voice 9: And it could come up with some really great ideas

[3:19:22] Voice 9: like we're not going to change our strategic direction

[3:19:25] Voice 9: or strategic plans, but within those constraints,

[3:19:28] Voice 9: come up with some good ideas about priorities.

[3:19:32] Voice 9: So in the meantime, I'm going to make the motion

[3:19:34] Voice 9: about the Loris proposal.

[3:19:38] Voice 9: And I've just got it here.

[3:19:40] Voice 9: i'm going to send it to rob and um we will deal with that one and then come back to the idea of

[3:19:48] Voice 9: having a kind of a workshop brainstorming session and sorry this this meeting seems to have expanded

[3:19:59] Voice 9: and i'm hoping i'm going to shrink it back down and move us along trustee elliot toby go ahead

[3:20:05] Voice 3: yeah so i support the idea of a joint meeting i think it needs to be termed something different

[3:20:11] Voice 3: and growth value framework we're getting tripped up on terminology that people don't understand so

[3:20:17] Voice 3: is there a way to you know state that there's a meeting to establish potential outcomes

[3:20:27] Voice 3: uses of the land information screening tool and mapping conservation values like how do we bring

[3:20:38] Voice 3: in the conservation and protecting like the priority on preserving places of any type of this

[3:20:47] Voice 3: in whatever spatial eventually develop how do we bring those two together that

[3:20:55] Voice 3: this is not new work this is leading to the sort of resiliency mapping the state of the islands

[3:21:02] Voice 3: what do they look like what are the trends developing into like that whole project so it's

[3:21:09] Voice 3: if we can please and bring back this idea of the conservation values like how those are

[3:21:15] Voice 3: not just about yeah mapping for housing okay

[3:21:20] Voice 9: thank you um can i just pause there for a moment to go

[3:21:25] Voice 9: back to this motion so it needs to have rob in there in the context of the list

[3:21:31] Voice 9: uh whatever it's called i've forgotten the list tool what does this stand for land information

[3:21:38] Voice 9: screening tool to pair a formal engagement process for the land

[3:21:46] Voice 9: information screening tool with one or more of the communication options and

[3:21:51] Voice 9: request staff to bring forward an option that addresses transparent island based

[3:21:57] Voice 9: co-development of data inputs and trainings anybody wants to amend this in

[3:22:03] Voice 9: any way before we I ask somebody to move this motion so

[3:22:09] Voice 5: I I don't agree that the

[3:22:12] Voice 5: the the the list needs to be explicit in that I think that it is an option uh among it is the

[3:22:21] Voice 5: thing that is currently being moved forward but I don't think that it needs to explicitly be

[3:22:25] Voice 5: part of this I think that that's it is

[3:22:27] Voice 9: yeah Sam we've gone I'm sorry for jumping around

[3:22:31] Voice 9: we've gone back to explicitly the list tool we have the separate option which is a workshop

[3:22:37] Voice 9: shop to uh consider conservation and using um maps and things for that yeah all

[3:22:50] Voice 5: right i

[3:22:51] Voice 5: go

[3:22:57] Voice 9: ahead does that make sense um i'm i'm sorry i've jumped around so this has gone yeah the

[3:23:11] Voice 5: jumping around is really it's just it's really

[3:23:14] Voice 5: doing me in here um i i so in turn the so because

[3:23:29] Voice 5: because the thing that i'm concerned about here is like this the the when we're talking about the

[3:23:33] Voice 5: formal engagement process and if i'm not completely lost my way we're talking about uh some of the

[3:23:40] Voice 5: recommendation or the the the recommendations the options that were outlined in william's staff

[3:23:46] Voice 5: staff report. Correct.

[3:23:49] Voice 5: So in terms of the formal engagement externally with that, my

[3:24:00] Voice 5: position continues to be that I don't think that there is, I don't think that we should be doing a

[3:24:06] Voice 5: lot of formal engagement on the tool as it is until we've had a chance to revise what that is.

[3:24:15] Voice 5: um so that that i that i think i'm struggling with in terms of like i think we need so and

[3:24:22] Voice 5: again like i don't we're we're off talking about the special joint meeting i gather

[3:24:27] Voice 5: but i think i i think we're i don't know perhaps i'm i'm losing it a little bit here but

[3:24:35] Voice 9: no you're not you're not the only one i think the joint meeting is to cover ideas going forward

[3:24:42] Voice 9: and might include exploring the list tool.

[3:24:46] Voice 9: Yeah,

[3:24:46] Voice 5: so I have some language for that.

[3:24:49] Voice 5: Well,

[3:24:50] Voice 9: this, yeah, and that would be great.

[3:24:52] Voice 9: But this particular motion is specifically to close out

[3:24:55] Voice 9: what you want staff to do with the content that was provided.

[3:25:00] Voice 9: Yeah.

[3:25:02] Voice 9: And you think we shouldn't be continuing on this path

[3:25:06] Voice 9: without fine-tuning or...

[3:25:09] Voice 9: i don't

[3:25:11] Voice 9: i don't want to be present i

[3:25:13] Voice 5: don't want to run into i i yeah i don't want to be presenting

[3:25:17] Voice 5: a lot more on that tool to the public while we haven't got it we haven't got a hand on the tiller

[3:25:23] Voice 5: um is my concern um i'm open to see that trustee elliott and trustee patrick got their hands up so

[3:25:29] Voice 5: i'd go to them yeah okay

[3:25:33] Voice 9: i i see this says this would not go to the public before we reviewed it

[3:25:38] Voice 9: it again. It's not, you know, develop it and put it out there. Trustee Patrick, go ahead.

[3:25:46] Voice 1: Yeah, no, I understand what Trustee Borthwick, his hesitancies, but the tool is out there. It

[3:25:51] Voice 1: is being used. So I think this is a strong message from the committee that, you know, that we want

[3:25:57] Voice 1: to see the engagement piece built as part, you know, part of this tool. It doesn't stop the

[3:26:02] Voice 1: conversations that we have to have as far as the priorities and work going forward. This is

[3:26:06] Voice 1: recognizing this tool exists today and that this is this you know this is a recommendation of this

[3:26:11] Voice 1: committee okay

[3:26:18] Voice 8: stefan thanks jerry um just to be get some clarity the um so request staff to pair

[3:26:26] Voice 8: a formal engagement process um with whom um is the first question i understand you know getting

[3:26:35] Voice 8: out the community at one point but what i'm hearing from this committee kind of some agreement that

[3:26:39] Voice 8: the first step in such a thing would be to engage with elected officials so and this resolution

[3:26:46] Voice 8: would cause staff to draft something to bring it back to the next meeting for your review and to

[3:26:52] Voice 8: make sure that we've got that right but that's what i'm understanding right now is that formal

[3:26:55] Voice 8: engagement process starts with elected officials and then you can review that at the next meeting

[3:27:01] Voice 8: if staff got that right and then with with the community members after that is that laura

[3:27:07] Voice 1: go ahead oh director cermak it's the full meal deal a formal engagement process is it's a you

[3:27:14] Voice 1: know the engagement with the the political it's the engagement with first nations it's the

[3:27:18] Voice 1: engagement with the public how is this tool going to be created and used um and it's the engagement

[3:27:25] Voice 1: that goes into it so it's it should be a full engagement process so

[3:27:33] Voice 8: if i may chair again you

[3:27:34] Voice 8: know stuff will endeavor to carry out your work but that's nowhere in the work program that type

[3:27:40] Voice 8: of work that's a project unto itself so happy to do it happy to recommend it but um i think trust

[3:27:46] Voice 8: council you know should be abreast of that to make sure that that's clear that that's what the rpc

[3:27:51] Voice 8: wants to do and staff would have to come forward with a program for that uh just so

[3:27:59] Voice 3: i'm so confused

[3:28:01] Voice 3: because i do think we need to go back to council to get direction on the use and intent of this

[3:28:10] Voice 3: land information screening goal before communication things are developed, before we go further

[3:28:15] Voice 3: down this path.

[3:28:18] Voice 3: So how do we phrase this so that we are going back to council about the list, like the development

[3:28:27] Voice 3: of a list, not methodology that's already been developed, but what it's to be used for.

[3:28:35] Voice 3: it is supported in the current strategic plan like there's no question that developing

[3:28:41] Voice 3: a land use planning framework that respects you know the prison and protect mandate like that's

[3:28:47] Voice 3: that's what we do so it's somewhere in the strategic plan it's how is the list directed

[3:28:55] Voice 3: work by trust council how do we get that back and find trust council so that we can continue this

[3:29:01] Voice 3: work uh

[3:29:08] Voice 9: stephan oh gosh

[3:29:12] Voice 8: let me just get back to my notes here the um it's not that the tool isn't

[3:29:20] Voice 8: before trust counseling you can't use it it's just you know we all know how much effort it takes to

[3:29:24] Voice 8: make a formal engagement process and to get it right to resource it etc and that's just we we

[3:29:30] Voice 8: don't have that in our work program to do that specific work and be happy to develop that work

[3:29:35] Voice 8: program it just would have to follow in logical order whereby you've got you know we might have

[3:29:40] Voice 8: have to make sure that we've got that right. So if you would like staff to draft this as per the

[3:29:43] Voice 8: resolution, we can return to RPC and make sure we get it right. But then we would want to make sure

[3:29:48] Voice 8: that Trust Council is aware that that's where the resources are going. Or if we need resources to

[3:29:53] Voice 8: host venues, to go out to First Nations, to go out to the community, that's a work program. So we

[3:29:58] Voice 8: need time to develop that work.

[3:30:00] Voice 8: programming to resource it properly so i think

[3:30:02] Voice 9: you guys clearly want to do it

[3:30:04] Voice 8: and we want to

[3:30:05] Voice 8: help but we

[3:30:05] Voice 8: have to make a work program resourced and we have to find time to do it so

[3:30:10] Voice 9: i have two

[3:30:10] Voice 9: two things to say about that number one um i don't think you need to launch the tool like broadly

[3:30:17] Voice 9: and what you need is an engagement process for a specific island project when you propose to use it

[3:30:25] Voice 9: when it's appropriate that you use it within that context that you have a way of explaining to people

[3:30:32] Voice 9: how it's going to be used and asking for their input to tailor it as William talked about the

[3:30:40] Voice 9: particular weightings that can be changed so that's how I see it's not like the launch this

[3:30:46] Voice 9: on the world it's create something that talks about how to um engage with the community that

[3:30:55] Voice 9: you're going to use it with and i emphasize the width rather than on and then the second thing

[3:31:01] Voice 9: is like in the absence of that if we are not completely comfortable you know is there a risk

[3:31:09] Voice 9: that we can say well you just can't use this then uh don't bring this to uh don't you know

[3:31:16] Voice 9: Planners on the islands can't use this in their projects.

[3:31:21] Voice 9: That's where I'm seeing this kind of difficulty leading us.

[3:31:25] Voice 9: And I'm sorry about that.

[3:31:27] Voice 9: But OK, Laura and then Toby.

[3:31:31] Voice 1: Well, I believe there's another action to create an engagement plan.

[3:31:34] Voice 1: So I would hope staff don't look at this as a separate project.

[3:31:39] Voice 1: I thought we were developing an engagement plan and tools on how we engage people.

[3:31:43] Voice 1: This is one of the things that we need to engage the public on and First Nations on and involve the local trust committees on the development of.

[3:31:55] Voice 1: So, you know, I think it doesn't have to stand by itself, but it needs to be embedded in how we engage the community and involve them and bring them through.

[3:32:07] Voice 1: We've got lots of lessons learned.

[3:32:09] Voice 1: okay

[3:32:13] Voice 9: i think we are at an impasse here and i suggest that if we cannot agree what needs to

[3:32:24] Voice 9: happen um and i feel that we can't agree what the next step is we all appreciate the content that's

[3:32:32] Voice 9: been given to us but we are diverging on next steps and how satisfactory or complete what we've

[3:32:40] Voice 9: been given is we should pause and we should take the material to trust council and ask for advice

[3:32:50] Voice 9: on where to go with this and that would be my proposal that we have a discussion at trust

[3:32:56] Voice 9: council on how this like the details of the land information screening tool and how it should be

[3:33:02] Voice 9: used i'm kind of frustrated here no more than all of you are and i don't know how to land this

[3:33:10] Voice 9: and that's the only thing that I can think of at this stage because we are circling the plug hole

[3:33:17] Voice 9: would anybody disagree with my proposal Stefan go ahead uh

[3:33:21] Voice 8: thanks Cher I was just thinking so

[3:33:23] Voice 8: the resolution would be to maybe forward the staff report to dated May 1st to trust council

[3:33:28] Voice 8: for consideration I

[3:33:32] Voice 9: think it's more than consideration it's for consideration on next

[3:33:35] Voice 9: steps and you know I would I would like a proper discussion about it and a discussion about the

[3:33:43] Voice 9: the pros and the cons, the positive and the negative,

[3:33:46] Voice 9: and just put it all out on the table and see what happens.

[3:33:50] Voice 9: Trustee Graham?

[3:33:52] Voice 7: Yeah, thank you, Chair.

[3:33:53] Voice 7: I think you've made an excellent decision.

[3:33:57] Voice 7: We're out of gas.

[3:33:58] Voice 7: We're a limited number, and if we deal with it in the morning

[3:34:03] Voice 7: at Trust Council, we'll be fresh,

[3:34:05] Voice 7: and we'll also be Zooming each other, but that's okay.

[3:34:11] Voice 7: Yeah, that's a step forward.

[3:34:13] Voice 9: okay yeah thanks thanks very much um i'm kind of out of gas truly um so um i move that the um

[3:34:25] Voice 9: sorry it's what's it called the communication summary and options for the land information

[3:34:30] Voice 9: screening tool uh staff report be forwarded to trust council for consideration and discussion

[3:34:38] Voice 9: discussion, together with the minutes of the RPC meeting.

[3:34:48] Voice 3: Chair, before you second.

[3:34:51] Voice 3: Yeah.

[3:34:53] Voice 3: Do you want that to be turned into a request for a disagreement?

[3:34:57] Voice 3: We're not just wanting to forward the briefing.

[3:34:59] Voice 3: We want to get Trust Council's direction on, I would say, the implementation

[3:35:05] Voice 3: and next steps for the land information screening.

[3:35:08] Voice 3: OK,

[3:35:08] Voice 9: sure.

[3:35:09] Voice 9: Sure. Yeah, Rob, if you could put that text up and then add in what, Toby, add in what you would like there, please.

[3:35:21] Voice 3: With

[3:35:22] Voice 9: the desire to have it.

[3:35:23] Voice 9: Take the briefing and

[3:35:23] Voice 3: turn it into an RFP with options.

[3:35:30] Voice 2: I'm through the chair. Trustee Elliott, if you could just repeat once more for me, please, so I can record that.

[3:35:38] Voice 3: So request the land information screening to go back to the court being amended as a request for decision and forwarded to trust counsel for consideration and discussion.

[3:35:57] Voice 3: discussion that's it i would say just consideration discussion and next steps

[3:36:07] Voice 3: like you want to get some direction but i guess that's implied by yeah consideration

[3:36:18] Voice 3: do you

[3:36:20] Voice 9: want the minutes i feel that if the if they had the discussion that we had it might

[3:36:26] Voice 9: be helpful but may just muddy the waters maybe we should just leave it anybody got an opinion

[3:36:36] Voice 9: just take it out then Rob

[3:36:38] Voice 9: time

[3:36:38] Voice 3: is short for

[3:36:40] Voice 3: getting the minutes together

[3:36:41] Voice 3: I think we can do

[3:36:42] Voice 3: that

[3:36:45] Voice 3: you know

[3:36:46] Voice 3: yeah sure

[3:36:48] Voice 9: let's just leave it then

[3:36:50] Voice 9: okay I move

[3:36:52] Voice 9: that the regional planning committee request

[3:36:54] Voice 9: the land information screening tool

[3:36:56] Voice 9: staff report be amended as a

[3:36:58] Voice 9: request for decision and forward it to

[3:37:00] Voice 9: trust council for consideration

[3:37:02] Voice 9: discussion and

[3:37:04] Voice 9: next steps. Anybody want to second it? Okay, thank you, Sam. Right, let's,

[3:37:19] Voice 9: so those in favour, raise your hands, please. Okay, lower your hands. And anybody against,

[3:37:36] Voice 9: please raise your hand. Okay, that motion carries. Okay, now we're back down to the motion.

[3:37:50] Voice 9: so okay in order we have completed the um communication summary and options action

[3:37:58] Voice 9: we have um voted on the active projects and we are now back to the um whether or not we need the one

[3:38:08] Voice 9: about a workshop a proposed workshop are you able to find your way back to that rob sam go ahead

[3:38:28] Voice 9: um

[3:38:29] Voice 5: so i mean i think to some degree um like a workshop i i think the workshop concept might

[3:38:38] Voice 5: need to flow from that rfd uh that we're sending to trust council because i think what we're doing

[3:38:43] Voice 5: is we're then convening this conversation with the whole of council uh and i think from there

[3:38:49] Voice 5: we can suggest i think that's something that we can come within our pocket and say hey we're

[3:38:53] Voice 5: We've also, we've talked about this and we think we need this as a further component of this, but I think we should let that flow from Trust Council.

[3:39:02] Voice 5: The only thing, and I can hear Director Cermak spinning up to say it, is that we've got to be obviously very mindful of our timelines.

[3:39:10] Voice 5: So we are running out of highway.

[3:39:12] Voice 5: highway so um you know i can i i'm i'm cognizant of that but i think that if we've asked if we've

[3:39:18] Voice 5: sent this report to trust council um we'd be getting ahead of ourselves to say well and also

[3:39:24] Voice 5: we've already scheduled this meeting to do x y and z um i i think we should let that flow from there

[3:39:30] Voice 5: um yeah i don't know if anybody and

[3:39:34] Voice 9: i i think that's a really good idea and i was just going

[3:39:38] Voice 9: to say though that um stephen would it be possible to explore a date sometime in july or august to

[3:39:46] Voice 9: have a kind of a workshop so we have a tentative date i can tell you that we've proposed to

[3:39:52] Voice 9: cancel the saturn ltc on the 23rd of july if that's helpful in choosing a date and you know

[3:40:00] Voice 9: we might have some sort of draft date in mind that that could help stephen

[3:40:09] Voice 8: indeed while we were

[3:40:11] Voice 8: talking i was exploring dates and that that date did pop up so i was trying to find uh presumably

[3:40:17] Voice 8: something post-trust council and um forgive me when is the next uh rpc meeting it's uh

[3:40:24] Voice 9: i think it's not till september it

[3:40:28] Voice 8: is july 24th

[3:40:31] Voice 9: oh the

[3:40:32] Voice 8: trust programs committee is july 23rd i'm

[3:40:34] Voice 9: dead i'm definitely i'm definitely i definitely need to draw this entire thing to a halt but

[3:40:40] Voice 9: But anyway, yeah, OK, fair enough. Right. Let's move on.

[3:40:44] Voice 9: I think that that's a very good idea, Sam, because we can really hash this discussion with a bigger audience, as David said.

[3:40:53] Voice 9: I think we're too and there are too few of us and we are discussing something that's so broad it goes way beyond our remit.

[3:41:03] Voice 9: And there are too many moving parts that we're not able to address. So I think that's a really good idea.

[3:41:08] Voice 9: you okay anybody else want to add in anything before we move on to um business other

[3:41:23] Voice 8: great madam chair

[3:41:24] Voice 9: oh go ahead

[3:41:25] Voice 8: stephan chair i'm supposed to say that darn madam

[3:41:29] Voice 8: um if there's a business case you know you want us to draft now and come back in in the next

[3:41:34] Voice 8: meeting uh please let us know um staff didn't have any particular recommendations at this time

[3:41:40] Voice 8: But that was a second resolution for you to consider or recommendation for you to consider as part of the work plan update.

[3:41:48] Voice 8: Yeah. So if there's not, that's fine. We can survive without that.

[3:41:52] Voice 8: And you can try it again in July. But it's always easiest to get some runway, as Trustee Borthwick mentioned.

[3:42:02] Voice 5: I mean, I think. Well, I think. Go ahead.

[3:42:06] Voice 9: I'm just going to say I'm not sure that we have the bandwidth to come up with any ideas anymore.

[3:42:11] Voice 9: more but if anybody wants to do it offline and that would be fine go ahead sam sorry toby first

[3:42:19] Voice 9: and then sam i

[3:42:21] Voice 3: think the potential for working with other partners external agencies who are

[3:42:26] Voice 3: doing the same work for instance the bow and island conservancy uh they've developed their

[3:42:33] Voice 3: conservation values decision-making tool and dr terry martin's lab which has already developed

[3:42:40] Voice 3: tool that is used across the area maybe that should be a business case it's not a webinar

[3:42:48] Voice 3: but a workshop to see you know what what designs trust you have in-house for the tools that you

[3:42:55] Voice 3: need to develop and how can we look at others um so that we're not trying to do everything in-house

[3:43:02] Voice 3: and that is sort of one

[3:43:05] Voice 1: of the aspects

[3:43:05] Voice 3: of the resiliency the larger resiliency project so

[3:43:10] Voice 3: I don't think it's new work, the whole project is put on hold, but perhaps a business case of

[3:43:16] Voice 3: how do we work with other agencies on these incorporated layered values in a spatial tool

[3:43:25] Voice 3: so that's around this kind of thing that's appropriate for the trust area,

[3:43:30] Voice 3: could be some form of value, what do you think?

[3:43:40] Voice 9: okay i'm following along on the transcript i can barely hear you toby but that's fine

[3:43:45] Voice 9: um do you want to respond to that stefan or should i move on to sam please

[3:43:53] Voice 8: move on i i'd

[3:43:54] Voice 8: rather

[3:43:54] Voice 5: hear from the elected officials okay

[3:43:56] Voice 9: sam go ahead uh

[3:43:58] Voice 5: well really all i was going to say

[3:44:00] Voice 5: is i know that stefan mentioned earlier that that a business case surrounding the if we are

[3:44:06] Voice 5: are going to go forward on sort of reviewing and assessing the um the list we you know there will

[3:44:11] Voice 5: be it would be useful to have a business case eventually um again i think possibly it's worth

[3:44:16] Voice 5: waiting until we've had trust counsel to like formally put that on the docket um i don't i

[3:44:22] Voice 5: don't know that it gives stefan all that much extra lead time and especially if we we don't

[3:44:28] Voice 5: want him to start working down down one thread before we've set the direction so um i don't

[3:44:34] Voice 5: want to I don't want to wind up wasting work there um yeah I don't have anything else particularly

[3:44:39] Voice 5: but I think that is my main focus currently yeah

[3:44:43] Voice 9: I I do like the ideas that Toby has put forward

[3:44:48] Voice 9: which is to reach out externally and almost use it as well I'm not going to I'm not going to expand

[3:44:55] Voice 9: on it I think it's those are good ideas and maybe Stefan that could be in the back of your mind for

[3:45:00] Voice 9: the discussion at trust council is there a possibility that i mean you know at some at

[3:45:09] Voice 9: some level is it possible that a tool such as this could be used to work or to encourage

[3:45:15] Voice 9: collaboration with other agencies and to make it easier and quicker to collaborate and refer

[3:45:23] Voice 9: but let's park that for the moment I suggest unless um

[3:45:29] Voice 8: one comment chair yeah go ahead just

[3:45:31] Voice 8: that trust council did pass a resolution to contact dr martin in regards to the conservation

[3:45:37] Voice 8: decisions lab and that's outstanding work for staff to do um director freder myself we're kind

[3:45:43] Voice 8: of wondering who's going to do that and carry that forward but nonetheless it is a resolution

[3:45:47] Voice 8: already by trust council that we're committed to following up on and that sort of ties into this

[3:45:52] Voice 8: spatial data and conservation it's it's not a workshop of course but um that's the beginning

[3:45:57] Voice 8: uh of something so yeah i'll just say that

[3:46:01] Voice 8: staff are following up on that trust council resolution

[3:46:06] Voice 9: okay thank you um right we're going to move on to item eight and under business other there was

[3:46:14] Voice 9: minor projects the criteria for the minor projects that was presented to us at a previous meeting

[3:46:21] Voice 9: um so my i'll go first just to open the floor and you're probably all worn out at this stage

[3:46:32] Voice 9: um i read this and i kind of turned it on its head i can't really see i need somebody to really

[3:46:40] Voice 9: explain to me whether we still need to stream things into major and minor projects because the

[3:46:47] Voice 9: criteria for the minor projects to me are the same criteria as would be for a major project

[3:46:53] Voice 9: and the thing that seems to drive it is the resource stream that can be used and the resource

[3:47:02] Voice 9: stream is your local planner who's dealing with applications etc etc and will do a little project

[3:47:08] Voice 9: work as much as they can in between times so it seems to me that it's a kind of a background

[3:47:16] Voice 9: resource management issue more than anything else and um you know for instance uh in the last year

[3:47:25] Voice 9: or so on saturn we uh we had a big issue last year with agricultural land management application

[3:47:33] Voice 9: and that absorbed the planner entirely um and we didn't get any minor project done for quite some

[3:47:42] Voice 9: some time. So within the constraints of the, I just don't see how a minor project

[3:47:52] Voice 9: is very different from a small major project and on a continuum with a major project.

[3:48:00] Voice 9: Go ahead, David.

[3:48:03] Voice 7: Thank you, Chair. Let me give you a Denman example. We had a major project

[3:48:08] Voice 7: being led by a, not our island planner, but someone from the regional planning team

[3:48:13] Voice 7: at a small part of that um we had the opportunity to have our island planner work on that at the

[3:48:20] Voice 7: same time and that that miter part we re we we calibrated it as a minor project um at the end

[3:48:28] Voice 7: of the day it it fell flat with our community but that was not our intention originally we thought

[3:48:32] Voice 7: it would be a cakewalk it was well within the budget it was a nice thing to get off our plate

[3:48:38] Voice 7: and simplified the community information

[3:48:41] Voice 7: and the scope of the major project.

[3:48:44] Voice 7: So for us, it worked really, really well

[3:48:46] Voice 7: and it could have worked even better

[3:48:47] Voice 7: had we won at the community level,

[3:48:50] Voice 7: but we didn't and that's fine.

[3:48:51] Voice 7: But in that particular case,

[3:48:54] Voice 7: it worked really brilliantly.

[3:48:58] Voice 9: Okay, okay.

[3:49:00] Voice 9: Laura, you're muted.

[3:49:08] Voice 1: Let me give you another example.

[3:49:10] Voice 1: Salt Spring, we're allowed a major project

[3:49:12] Voice 1: and three minors but we can't resource any of them um so i'm i'm going to send you i'm going

[3:49:18] Voice 1: to be leaving shortly but um i think there needs to be an ability to over you know whether it's

[3:49:23] Voice 1: minor or major it needs to be taken into consideration over the federation we need

[3:49:27] Voice 1: to make sure that resources are going where they're needed i think it's critical and um

[3:49:33] Voice 1: this just everybody gets a project you know south pender has redone their floor area plan

[3:49:38] Voice 1: area, you know, three terms in a row.

[3:49:42] Voice 1: We haven't even done it once. You know, so I think we've got to really make sure

[3:49:45] Voice 1: things, it's not just fair, you get a project. Do you really need to get that

[3:49:49] Voice 1: project and how does it relate to the overall federation? We're a federation.

[3:49:56] Voice 9: Yeah, I suppose that's kind of what I was saying as well, but in a back-to-front way.

[3:50:00] Voice 9: Go ahead, Toby.

[3:50:02] Voice 3: Yeah, thanks for this, Chair.

[3:50:05] Voice 3: I asked for this to be added because simply

[3:50:08] Voice 3: the minor project criteria has been communicated to this body and no one else. We haven't finished

[3:50:16] Voice 3: the discussion on this, and now we already have a case where, you know, subcontractors

[3:50:22] Voice 3: requested minor projects for the remainder of this term, so it turned down, not because of

[3:50:29] Voice 3: this minor project criteria, but the direction from council of no new work. But I think,

[3:50:38] Voice 3: we need to have a shift with what Laura just said.

[3:50:41] Voice 3: It's not just, it should not be directed

[3:50:44] Voice 3: by local trust committees.

[3:50:46] Voice 3: There are Federation-wide priorities

[3:50:48] Voice 3: and that's where council is going,

[3:50:50] Voice 3: where we're identifying these priorities

[3:50:53] Voice 3: and then as things get moved forward

[3:50:57] Voice 3: and there's an appropriate place to update it,

[3:51:00] Voice 3: that's when it can be considered by an LTC.

[3:51:02] Voice 3: But yeah, so I just would like to see the only amendment

[3:51:06] Voice 3: that I make to the suggested recommendation that the Regional Planning Committee endorse

[3:51:11] Voice 3: the APAP minor project initiation criteria and their implementation in the Director's

[3:51:17] Voice 3: Determination and Realization of Resources for Local Trust Committee minor projects and advance

[3:51:22] Voice 3: these documents to Trust Council so that everybody else is in the way. I'm fine with the criteria.

[3:51:33] Voice 3: I'm fine with amending the criteria. I don't think we have time for that discussion today.

[3:51:37] Voice 3: I think there should be some criteria and the rest of Trust Council needs to understand why.

[3:51:42] Voice 3: And we should at least raise it at that table. Thank you.

[3:51:54] Voice 9: OK. So what we're saying really is that the criteria for the project internally is fine.

[3:52:01] Voice 9: it's the kind of ranking or allocation of resources that should be done as part of a

[3:52:09] Voice 9: kind of a more federated uh discussion and i agree with that as well i i feel that it it

[3:52:17] Voice 9: creates a sort of fractured picture and even for instance i mean your island planner is shared

[3:52:22] Voice 9: across islands and you know they have to uh you know allocate their resource in a way

[3:52:30] Voice 9: that that makes sense to them but there's no challenge to that or setting priorities or

[3:52:39] Voice 9: helping them to set those priorities in case they're challenged by one island versus another

[3:52:45] Voice 9: so it would make a lot more sense to have it reviewed in the same way as the major projects are

[3:52:51] Voice 9: so with that

[3:52:54] Voice 9: do you

[3:52:57] Voice 9: my internet

[3:52:59] Voice 9: where my agenda

[3:53:01] Voice 9: is is completely frozen

[3:53:02] Voice 9: I've just got a smaller laptop and it's

[3:53:05] Voice 9: not working very well

[3:53:06] Voice 9: so

[3:53:07] Voice 9: do you want to make a motion?

[3:53:10] Voice 9: Toby, go ahead

[3:53:11] Voice 9: Good

[3:53:13] Voice 3: I think

[3:53:16] Voice 3: Professor Patrick's

[3:53:18] Voice 3: motion of running

[3:53:20] Voice 3: hospitalised criteria is good

[3:53:22] Voice 3: We could strengthen the, well, at the doctor's discussion, we could strengthen the minor

[3:53:30] Voice 3: project criteria by considering something like including a clear, explicit cross-border

[3:53:40] Voice 3: resource allocation lens.

[3:53:43] Voice 3: I like this language.

[3:53:44] Voice 3: Does that make sense to anybody else?

[3:53:47] Voice 3: I think that's sort of just overall the lens to view the criteria that, you know, we're

[3:53:53] Voice 3: considering funding resources, community scale and complexity, and alignment with federal

[3:53:58] Voice 3: statewide priorities. So we could add thoughts if it makes sense. Does anybody else think

[3:54:12] Voice 3: that's of value? I'm just sort of reading through the chat.

[3:54:21] Voice 3: Okay, go ahead

[3:54:23] Voice 8: Stefan. I'm just thinking perhaps some of those thoughts are captured in terms of

[3:54:29] Voice 8: the project should address one of the more following things like a strategic plan priority

[3:54:34] Voice 8: or others there's there's certainly information in here which takes a federation approach but

[3:54:40] Voice 8: maybe not as explicitly as trustee Elliott is mentioning but certainly when I read these

[3:54:45] Voice 8: draft criteria that would be for the director's consideration it it certainly takes that that

[3:54:50] Voice 8: lens of how many how much resources do we have is it a priority is has you know is the work going to

[3:54:56] Voice 8: to be you know contained within the minor criteria it also gives a chance for staff and this is the

[3:55:04] Voice 8: tricky part and this part that makes me scream honestly is to say no which is a very difficult

[3:55:10] Voice 8: thing to say when it's a minor project and that is the evaluation in terms of it's been ongoing

[3:55:17] Voice 8: too much scope creep or just the work's not progressing in a reasonable manner so there's

[3:55:22] Voice 8: discussion to be had there there's nothing the the structural makeup of the trust of the individual

[3:55:28] Voice 8: ltcs having you know unfettered decision making and everybody wanting to get their own projects

[3:55:34] Voice 8: done there will be tension there so generally when i'm saying yes to a project it's just

[3:55:40] Voice 8: do we still have money and and what staff are available to do it and we almost always try to

[3:55:46] Voice 8: accommodate at least one minor project per ltc it's reasonable it's not a lot of evaluation

[3:55:50] Voice 8: going on there it's very basic but this would be much more robust and defendable and for all the

[3:55:58] Voice 8: reasons they're equitable and fair but there are increased opportunities for staff to say no based

[3:56:03] Voice 8: on this criteria and not that we're looking forward to that but just recognize that that

[3:56:07] Voice 8: will you know definitely cause tension in the future with somebody somewhere yeah

[3:56:15] Voice 9: and i'll

[3:56:17] Voice 9: come to you again then toby i i feel you know i'm thinking about it in terms of you know

[3:56:22] Voice 9: significant volume or a very complex application of some kind could derail a small minor project

[3:56:28] Voice 9: and it could be that you know local trustees don't necessarily understand that and there needs to be

[3:56:34] Voice 9: an intervention and so but I do take Laura's point that it should be more transparent and it should

[3:56:42] Voice 9: be looked at in a more integrated broader context. Go ahead Toby.

[3:56:50] Voice 3: I'm not sure if there's

[3:56:51] Voice 3: yeah

[3:56:52] Voice 9: I'm sorry Toby there's somebody in the background very loud that we is cutting across

[3:57:00] Voice 9: you sorry I

[3:57:01] Voice 3: just you know

[3:57:02] Voice 9: I'll never mind um right do we need a motion to I'm completely stuck so I

[3:57:18] Voice 9: can't scroll through anything ah here we go to include clear explicit trust-wide resource

[3:57:26] Voice 9: resource allocation lens, this should include. Okay. I like that. Would anybody like to comment

[3:57:35] Voice 9: on that, Sam? Go ahead.

[3:57:37] Voice 5: I was just going to offer to read it out and then we can have discussion.

[3:57:45] Voice 5: So I move that the Regional Planning Committee request staff to strengthen the minor project

[3:57:49] Voice 5: criteria to include clear, explicit, trust-wide resource allocation to include a clear, explicit,

[3:57:58] Voice 5: This should consider overall demand on planning resources, community scale and complexity, and align with federation-wide priorities.

[3:58:09] Voice 9: I like it. Anybody else? Toby?

[3:58:15] Voice 9: I'll be the second.

[3:58:18] Voice 9: Okay. Right. Let's vote on this then.

[3:58:24] Voice 5: I'm assuming that everyone has, we've discussed it sufficiently. I just want to...

[3:58:31] Voice 9: yeah no toby seconded it so well

[3:58:34] Voice 5: there's still just you then call for discussion before going

[3:58:36] Voice 5: to the vote that's all i'm just in case anybody

[3:58:38] Voice 9: wants to say anything else

[3:58:39] Voice 5: that's the process

[3:58:40] Voice 9: sam sam sam look at the top no okay would anybody like to add their voice to this or

[3:58:49] Voice 9: add anything to it it's been uh moved and seconded okay thanks uh so all those in favor raise your

[3:59:02] Voice 9: hands uh anybody against raise your hand so that motion carries and by the way i think robert

[3:59:19] Voice 9: kojima did this before he left and i did like it and i liked the clarity and the fact that it was

[3:59:24] Voice 9: brought to our attention so i appreciate that and i do think this is a good result yeah toby go ahead

[3:59:32] Voice 10: can you hear

[3:59:32] Voice 9: me okay yeah

[3:59:34] Voice 3: can we just can we just forward this the revised

[3:59:48] Voice 3: We need to forward this to council.

[3:59:50] Voice 3: They need to be informed.

[3:59:51] Voice 3: This is for all local committees, perhaps.

[3:59:57] Voice 9: Okay, Stefan, over to you.

[4:00:00] Voice 9: Toby sure

[4:00:01] Voice 8: I mean obviously they need to be informed and have you know sort of approved this

[4:00:06] Voice 8: policy direction but you've just asked us to change it so perhaps the appropriate thing would

[4:00:11] Voice 8: be staff to bring it back with those changes and then you can forward it at the next council meeting

[4:00:16] Voice 9: okay so you'll bring it back to the next meeting on the 24th of July and then we will do as Toby

[4:00:23] Voice 9: suggested which I think is important and we sometimes miss out that step and assume that

[4:00:28] Voice 9: people are in telepathic communication with everything that goes on at the different

[4:00:34] Voice 9: committees. Okay, thank you all for your patience and your forbearance. This has been longer than I

[4:00:41] Voice 9: thought it would be. So number 10, the work program for review and referral to Trust Council.

[4:00:49] Voice 9: So let's have a look at that. 65. This is up to date, I assume.

[4:01:03] Voice 8: It should be, Chair.

[4:01:04] Voice 8: yeah

[4:01:05] Voice 9: yeah oh

[4:01:12] Voice 8: uh perhaps uh you know staff may recommend uh chair that uh item number two the

[4:01:18] Voice 8: target date of september 2026 um that might be rather ambitious but um so it might be wiser to

[4:01:25] Voice 8: push that to um the january meeting actually so

[4:01:28] Voice 9: actually that was the thing that i asked that we

[4:01:32] Voice 9: we would, can you give us a quick status update on that?

[4:01:37] Voice 9: Have you done anything?

[4:01:40] Voice 9: I was thinking of asking you,

[4:01:42] Voice 9: like who is going to select the executor of the review?

[4:01:47] Voice 9: How will that happen?

[4:01:50] Voice 8: Sure, I don't know if we still have staff here.

[4:01:53] Voice 8: Do we still have William here?

[4:01:54] Voice 8: Him and I will be working on it together.

[4:01:58] Voice 8: And right now what we've divvied up the duties

[4:02:00] Voice 8: is he's going to draft up the terms of reference first,

[4:02:03] Voice 8: for our review it's a pretty straightforward request and then we put out so what we do is

[4:02:10] Voice 8: create the terms of reference we put out the screening criteria and then we post it and i

[4:02:17] Voice 8: don't know willing would be better advised to know where we is a good place to post those things as

[4:02:23] Voice 8: opposed to just on the bc bits type website or our own website there may be other more hydro

[4:02:29] Voice 8: geological type places um and then yeah we haven't really decided next steps about whom to evaluate

[4:02:35] Voice 8: um generally it would be uh you know three people uh the uh the specialist uh the senior uh

[4:02:44] Voice 8: freshwater specialist uh myself and another uh we have a procurement specialist who's now the

[4:02:50] Voice 8: director of finance uh derek um that's

[4:02:55] Voice 11: a great idea yeah yeah

[4:02:56] Voice 8: so he he has helped us

[4:02:58] Voice 8: instrumentally in the past through the procurement process so that would be my recommendation to be

[4:03:03] Voice 8: the three of us because I think it'll be a small pool of people and it'll be a relatively quick

[4:03:07] Voice 8: evaluation but I would turn to William there perhaps he's got some more thoughts that's fine

[4:03:13] Voice 9: that's that sounds like a good plan I was just curious and what stage are you at within that

[4:03:20] Voice 9: yeah

[4:03:22] Voice 8: the stage is we're in the drafting of the terms of reference it which I think would be

[4:03:26] Voice 8: quick but we were

[4:03:28] Voice 8: trying to get to this meeting first with all the things okay

[4:03:31] Voice 9: fair enough okay

[4:03:32] Voice 9: okay thank you um right uh so the work program we're scrolling through it here um so uh you said

[4:03:45] Voice 9: that uh patricia woodruff is there another report coming you said indeed

[4:03:50] Voice 8: thank you chair so patricia

[4:03:52] Voice 8: Marsha Woodruff gave you a summary of the work she had done during the year she was with us.

[4:03:57] Voice 8: But what she didn't share yet was where the specific deliverables and the one I'm most excited to share with you.

[4:04:02] Voice 8: But unfortunately, that was precisely the morning I hit my deer that week where I had several hours scheduled to work together.

[4:04:10] Voice 8: And that is kind of the state of the islands report in regards to species at risk protection.

[4:04:17] Voice 8: And what she did is she took a look at each island, local trust area, pardon me, each local trust area, and said, how are you doing in terms of achieving species at risk goals and legislation?

[4:04:28] Voice 8: And she did that by looking at the status of known information on the species themselves and on the policies and land use bylaws per local trust area in terms of protecting those species at risk.

[4:04:39] Voice 8: so that's a good piece of information for each ltc but i was to play the editor in that to make

[4:04:46] Voice 8: sure that i's are dot and t's are crossed but um like i said it came back to work full-time for

[4:04:50] Voice 8: two weeks and um i have a it just wasn't able to make this agenda on time so begun the process but

[4:04:56] Voice 8: so that should be coming forward um so they can kind of close the loop on that and then the ltc

[4:05:01] Voice 8: the rpc i would recommend at that point that information will go to trust council and to all

[4:05:06] Voice 8: the LTCs and there's a couple smaller deliverables but they're more in-house but I would share them

[4:05:12] Voice 8: with the with the elected officials and that is things like in terms of reference for

[4:05:17] Voice 8: when reviewing biologists work so that we you know staff have a little a bit of a cheat sheet

[4:05:24] Voice 8: guideline and I'm blanking on the other deliverable right now but there were three of them

[4:05:30] Voice 8: so that work is just just requires my editing that's all

[4:05:34] Voice 9: that's fine and I see it

[4:05:37] Voice 9: It, yeah, it's number six on the future projects list, is it?

[4:05:45] Voice 8: Yeah, a bit weird.

[4:05:46] Voice 8: That's number six, number three on the active projects list.

[4:05:50] Voice 9: And

[4:05:50] Voice 8: it also made it there.

[4:05:51] Voice 8: Yeah.

[4:05:51] Voice 8: So my apologies.

[4:05:54] Voice 8: So,

[4:05:55] Voice 9: okay, good.

[4:05:58] Voice 9: Okay, right.

[4:06:00] Voice 9: Anybody else want to jump in on the projects list?

[4:06:03] Voice 9: I see deafening silence.

[4:06:10] Voice 9: I bet if we did this straight out of the blocks, item one on the agenda, we might get a different response.

[4:06:17] Voice 9: By now, you could sneak anything in, Stefan, and we'd just nod and move on.

[4:06:23] Voice 9: I'd

[4:06:23] Voice 8: like a new biologist.

[4:06:25] Voice 9: Yeah.

[4:06:27] Voice 9: Good try.

[4:06:30] Voice 9: I

[4:06:31] Voice 5: mean, I'm awake and I agree.

[4:06:33] Voice 5: Hey!

[4:06:37] Voice 9: okay well um so the next meeting is i can't believe i just blanked that out july the 24th

[4:06:44] Voice 9: at 10 a.m and um i think we i feel quite worn out and this took longer than i anticipated

[4:06:53] Voice 9: and i think i lost my way in the forest in the middle of it all and i didn't leave you

[4:06:58] Voice 9: as a leader should I just allowed you to wander around in the bushes with me but I hope it was

[4:07:06] Voice 9: a good discussion and it brought a lot of things to the surface so um I'll leave you now weary but

[4:07:13] Voice 9: feeling fulfilled I hope and feeling like you got to say everything you wanted to say and that we

[4:07:20] Voice 9: found some some kind of conclusion in the end so I appreciate everything and I appreciate

[4:07:27] Voice 9: You know, as we come to the end of the term, I appreciate all of you and your contributions and your efforts and your mostly unfailing, even-tempered contributions that we have in these meetings.

[4:07:43] Voice 9: Yeah.

[4:07:44] Voice 9: So with that, get out into the sunshine.

[4:07:48] Voice 7: Thanks, Chair.

[4:07:49] Voice 7: Okay.

[4:07:50] Voice 9: Take care, everybody.

[4:07:51] Voice 9: And thanks, Rob.

[4:07:53] Voice 9: Bye.

DRAFT

Regional Planning Committee
Minutes of a Regular Meeting

Date:                      May 1, 2026
Location:                Electronic Meeting

Members Present:     Mairead Boland, Saturna Island Local Trustee, Chair
                               Sam Borthwick, Denman Island Local Trustee, Vice Chair
                               Tobi Elliott, Gabriola Island Local Trustee, Executive Committee Representative
                               David Graham, Denman Island Local Trustee
                               Aaron Campbell, North Pender Island Local Trustee
                               Laura Patrick, Salt Spring Island Local Trustee (ex officio)

Member Regrets:        Aaron Campbell, North Pender Island Local Trustee

Staff Present:               Stefan Cermak, Director, Planning Services
                               William Shulba, Senior Freshwater Specialist
                               Rob Kroeker, Planning Services Administrative Assistant / Recorder

1.              CALL TO ORDER

Chair Boland called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. and acknowledged that participants of the meeting were attending all across the territories of the Coast Salish peoples.

2.              AGENDA

2.1           Review of the Agenda

One new item was presented for consideration:

    •       Add Minor Projects Criteria Request For Decision to agenda section 8, Business - Other

Trustee Borthwick joined the meeting at 10:12 a.m.

2.2           Approval of Agenda

By general consent the Regional Planning Committee approved the agenda as amended.

3.              PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

No members of the public were in attendance.

Regional Planning Committee
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
May 1, 2026                                                        DRAFT                                               Page 1 of 7


DRAFT

4. DELEGATIONS  
None.

5. CORRESPONDENCE  
5.1 2026-02-13 Chair Patrick Re: Bylaw Compliance and Enforcement Policy Amendments Feedback  
Received for information.

6. ADMINISTRATVE COORDINATION  
6.1 Draft Minutes of Previous Meetings  
For review and approval.  
6.1.1 Regional Planning Committee Draft Minutes of Feb. 6, 2026 Regular Meeting  
Chair Boland suggested that the word “less” in a point on p. 9 of the agenda be amended to “loss” so that the phrase reads “no net loss”.  

By general consent the Regional Planning Committee approved the minutes as amended.

6.2 Resolutions Without Meeting  
None.

6.3 Follow-up Action List  
Director Cermak noted that the Follow-Up Action List lacked items for completion dated later than July 2025, and is being updated by staff. Committee discussion included:  
• send a new version to Regional Planning Committee when updates are completed  
• Freshwater Sustainability Strategy and Minor Project Criteria are key items to add to the list  

7. BUSINESS – WORK PROGRAM ITEMS  
7.1 2025/26 Annual Report – Approval of Regional Planning Committee Section – Request For Decision  

RPC 2026-005  
It was MOVED and SECONDED,  


Regional Planning Committee  
Minutes of a Regular Meeting  
May 1, 2026  
DRAFT  
Page 2 of 7


DRAFT

that the Regional Planning Committee approves the attached text for inclusion in the 2025/26 Annual Report for approval by Trust Council and submission to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

CARRIED

7.2 Change of Date for Regional Planning Committee November Meeting – Request For Decision

Committee discussion included:
• the Request for Decision is from Executive Committee
• a motion should be modified to reflect that it comes from Regional Planning Committee

RPC 2026-006
It was MOVED and SECONDED,
that the Regional Planning Committee cancel the November 27, 2026 Regional Planning Committee meeting and schedule a special meeting on January 8, 2027.
CARRIED

7.3 Communication Summary and Options for Land Information Screening Tool - Report

Senior Freshwater Specialist Shulba delivered the report, noting that it contemplates Regional Planning Committee’s request for staff to consider methodology and propose options for communications about the Land Information Screening Tool. Committee discussion included:
• there has been reputational harm to the Gabriola Island Local Trust Committee and its ability to pursue its Official Community Plan project due to one of the tool’s maps being circulated in the community without context
• a trustee thinks that communications should be paired with a formal engagement process to build community trust
• staff should return with options about how to do further this initiative in a co-developed, island-based manner with the community
• pursuing a communications plan while lacking confidence in the tool itself is challenging
• consider putting the tool on the projects list as something that Regional Planning Committee can make recommendations for
• ask Trust Council to give Regional Planning Committee direction to oversee the delivery of changes to the tool
• more effort should be put into ground truthing the layers and data
• a trustee suggests this tool is about increased density, and would prefer to shift the focus to what can be protected
• the implementation section on p.39 should be included in communications about the tool, particularly that “the LIST is a decision-support tool and not a regulatory instrument. Its outputs are intended to inform [...] rather than to prescribe”

Regional Planning Committee
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
May 1, 2026 DRAFT Page 3 of 7


DRAFT

• the step from layers and maps, to weighting information within the tool, is a crucial area for input
• step back and proceed more slowly, with any map produced having lots of discussion before entering the public domain
• members of the public will likely use the tool to zoom in to their lot
• use cases will help demonstrate how the tool can be used otherwise
• some weighting determinations are protected practices for biologists, or other professionally credentialed judgments, called type 1 data
• community involvement and values-based decision-making can inform type 2 and 3 data layers
• the groundwater wells layer draws frustration about inaccuracy
• a GIS tool from the previous term with the live ability to implement participant decisions and change weighting in real time allowed collaboration with the community and working groups
• how often is the tool being updated, and how are inaccuracies dealt with?
• trustees have a responsibility to direct how Islands Trust does work
• the tool was a staff project that went into use and backed other work without passing an approval process from trustees
• the effect is that this tool supports preconceptions that staff are pushing changes on the islands from far away
• this tool is about understanding growth trends and projections in support of Strategic Plan initiative 2.1.2: developing a growth management framework
• it is also a bridge to evaluating ecosystem health, resiliency, and disturbed areas, supporting Strategic Plan direction 3.2: improve understanding and monitoring of ecosystem health
• this tool must identify both opportunities and constraints for development
• understand what we can accomplish in-house and what can be achieved via relationships such as with Dr. Tara Martin’s Conservation Decisions Lab
• Bowen Island Biodiversity Plan is an example of a spatial tool with integrated conservation values, which informed Bowen’s Official Community Plan
• suitability for protection should be prioritized and demonstrated
• remove communications suggestions that the tool is for increasing density, because it is a broader tool for planners
• relative weighting of layers could be tweaked towards ecosystem resilience, but may be influenced by the need for input by a qualified professional
• this initiative is a base layer for resiliency and ecosystem health indicators as a way of understanding the land and the social factors influencing it

The meeting recessed for lunch at 11:59 a.m., and resumed at 12:29 p.m.

7.4 Work Plan Update – Request For Decision

Chair Boland guided discussion to the Work Plan. Director Cermak introduced the Request for Decision. Committee discussion included:

Regional Planning Committee
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
May 1, 2026                                     DRAFT                                               Page 4 of 7


DRAFT

- the Land Information Screening Tool is part of a larger project of developing tools for ecosystem resilience planning
- the tool has potential to bring together information into a values-based mapping framework
- the tool is not new work and falls under Strategic Plan key initiative 2.3.2: implement the Housing Strategic Action Plan
- the tool requires more development before further staff implementation
- it does not account for social and political contingencies of its work products, which is the area of expertise of trustees
- sufficient elected official oversight and deliberation is sought
- viewing what tools other jurisdictions have could help provide clarity
- a workshop could seek input and opinions of trustees to potentially broaden the scope and use of the Land Information Screening Tool
- Trust Council could be the body to explore or endorse more robust use of the tool
- define clearly what the tool is for, whether it is achieving those aims, and work on an ongoing framework for its maintenance and use
- demonstrate how the community would be engaged in weighting and use if the tool were informing development of an Official Community Plan
- Regional Planning Committee has a full suite of active projects
- growth management is already on future projects but can be prioritized
- tool development work could be the key action for implementing the Housing Strategic Action Plan, if this is placed on the work program
- potential exists for working with other partners who have developed demonstrable tools, such as Bowen Island Conservancy or Dr. Tara Martin’s UBC Conservation Decisions Lab

RPC 2026-007  
It was MOVED and SECONDED,  
that the Regional Planning Committee amends its active projects list by replacing completed Trust Council Strategic Plan Key Initiative 1.2.3 – *Improve bylaw enforcement policies and procedures to be administratively fair, reasonable and transparent with the aim of restoring public confidence,* with Trust Council Strategic Plan Key Initiative 2.3.2 – *Implement the Housing Strategic Action Plan.*

CARRIED

Regional Planning Committee returned to consideration of item 7.3.

Committee discussion continued:
- Regional Planning Committee could consider a special meeting and a formal engagement process for the Land Information Screening Tool
- it is worth it for this group to spend time articulating this project and recommend a business case because budget deliberations are under way by the time next Trust Council is incoming
- a joint meeting with Trust Programs Committee can address shared priorities within Strategic Plan initiatives

Regional Planning Committee  
Minutes of a Regular Meeting  
May 1, 2026  DRAFT  
Page 5 of 7


DRAFT

- conservation values should be brought in to mapping and factor in environmental resilience
- a trustee suggested that external engagement should not be performed until there is an opportunity to revise the Land Information Screening Tool
- a joint special meeting could be premature before that tool is refined
- the Land Information Screening Tool exists and is being used now
- a formal engagement process requires resources and a work program
- engagement could be pursued in the context of a specific island project
- if the Committee is at an impasse, the material should be taken to Trust Council as a Request for Decision with options

RPC 2026-008
It was MOVED and SECONDED,
that the Regional Planning Committee request the Land Information Screening Tool staff report be amended as a Request for Decision and forwarded to Trust Council for consideration, discussion, and next steps.
CARRIED

8. BUSINESS – OTHER

8.1 Minor Project Criteria – Request For Decision

Director Cermak introduced the Request For Decision. Committee discussion included:
- the difference between major and minor projects is sometimes unclear
- issues can absorb island planner time and capacity for minor projects
- resources should be going where they are needed across the federation
- minor project evaluation should reflect federation-wide priorities
- ranking of projects or allocation of resources should be viewed at a broader level than the local trust committee
- island planners have multiple islands and must allocate time accordingly
- more transparency is desired to make decisions on projects in an integrated, broader context
- bring the criteria back to the next meeting in July and then it can be forwarded to Trust Council

RPC 2026-009
It was MOVED and SECONDED,
That Regional Planning Committee request staff to strengthen the minor project criteria to include a clear, explicit Trust-wide resource allocation lens. This should consider:
- overall demand on planning resources,
- community scale and complexity, and
- alignment with federation-wide priorities.
CARRIED

9. BUSINESS – NEW

Regional Planning Committee
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
May 1, 2026                                                           DRAFT                                                             Page 6 of 7


DRAFT

None.

10.        WORK PROGRAM

             Director Cermak discussed the committee’s Work Program, including the Freshwater Sustainability Strategy review. Committee discussion included:
                   • drafting of the Terms of Reference for the Freshwater Sustainability Strategy review is occurring now
                   • the Biologist’s deliverables including a state of the islands report for species at risk protection will be returned for the committee’s consideration

11.        NEXT MEETING

             The next Regional Planning Committee regular meeting is July 24, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

12.        CLOSED MEETING

             The Committee did not close the meeting.

13.        RISE AND REPORT

             As the Committee did not close the meeting, there was no need for the Committee to discuss this option.

14.        ADJOURNMENT

             By general consent, the meeting was adjourned at 2:21 p.m.

___________________________________
Mairead Boland, Chair

Certified Correct:

___________________________________
Rob Kroeker, Planning Services Administrative Assistant

Minutes are not official until adopted at a subsequent meeting.

Regional Planning Committee  
Minutes of a Regular Meeting  
May 1, 2026                                                                                                                 DRAFT                                                                                                                 Page 7 of 7