Gambier Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, May 26, 2026

[0:00:04] Trustee Patrick: Lisa's on it so Lisa I think we're all set so just let me know when we're ready

[0:00:09] Trustee Patrick: you're ready we're ready all right um uh good morning good morning it is still morning

[0:00:16] Trustee Patrick: I'm going to be mixed up the clock up there says it's after 10 but I know it's 11 so

[0:00:21] Trustee Patrick: if I say wrong times it's the clock um so I call this regular meeting of the Gambier Keats

[0:00:27] Trustee Patrick: local trust committee to order we are live streaming and we're recording this meeting

[0:00:31] Trustee Patrick: and the recording will be available in a few days i begin by acknowledging with respect and humility

[0:00:37] Trustee Patrick: that the lands and the waters of gambier geats local trust area have been home to indigenous

[0:00:42] Trustee Patrick: people since time immemorial their deep connection to these islands continues to this day

[0:00:47] Trustee Patrick: and we honor their enduring presence constitutional rights and responsibilities

[0:00:51] Trustee Patrick: i just want to say we're living through a genuine period of transition in british columbia

[0:00:56] Trustee Patrick: indigenous title was never extinguished in this province that reality is not new

[0:01:00] Trustee Patrick: new, but our collective willingness to engage with it openly, thoughtfully and respectfully

[0:01:04] Trustee Patrick: is evolving. On today's agenda, we'll be considering an update to the Gambier's OCP. The first

[0:01:10] Trustee Patrick: step is updating the document includes strengthening our commitment to working with First Nations

[0:01:15] Trustee Patrick: and respecting government to government relationships in land use planning. I really encourage people

[0:01:20] Trustee Patrick: to read this book, Unseated, understanding British Columbia's past and why it matters

[0:01:26] Trustee Patrick: Now by George Abbott. On April 26th, I attended a good relations conversation with Adam Olson and

[0:01:33] Trustee Patrick: George Abbott, and I left with renewed clarity and energy for this important work. On May 16th,

[0:01:40] Trustee Patrick: I attended a panel discussion with former BC Attorney General Andrew Petter and Jeff Plant,

[0:01:46] Trustee Patrick: along with Adam Olson. And during this discussion, both former Attorney Generals emphasized that

[0:01:52] Trustee Patrick: people should not be fearful about private property rights. If you get an opportunity to

[0:01:56] Trustee Patrick: see that recording i really encourage it so i just encourage people to seek out thoughtful

[0:02:03] Trustee Patrick: informed voices to read widely to listen carefully and engage respectfully in these issues

[0:02:08] Trustee Patrick: if we rely only on social media posts or overheated political rhetoric we risk losing

[0:02:14] Trustee Patrick: the opportunity for the informed and constructive community dialogue that this moment deserves i'm

[0:02:21] Trustee Patrick: laura patrick i'm elected on salt spring i'm the chair of this local trust committee i'm joined

[0:02:25] Trustee Patrick: joined today by trustee Kate Louise Stanford and trustee Joe Bernardo, and together we

[0:02:31] Trustee Patrick: make up your local trust committee. The staff joining us today, we have in the room of course

[0:02:37] Trustee Patrick: Marlos Macarger. In our ethernet that will be coming through voice here is we have Lisa

[0:02:44] Trustee Patrick: Millard who will be our minute taker and I assume Sonia Zupanek will be joining us and

[0:02:51] Trustee Patrick: is there anyone else that will be joining us? No? I don't think so, so that shouldn't

[0:02:55] Trustee Patrick: and be everybody.

[0:02:57] Trustee Patrick: All right, this meeting is an official forum

[0:02:58] Trustee Patrick: for your local trust committee to make decisions

[0:03:00] Trustee Patrick: about land use planning matters

[0:03:02] Trustee Patrick: and discuss relevant business.

[0:03:03] Trustee Patrick: And it's also a place of employment

[0:03:05] Trustee Patrick: and our staff have a right to a safe

[0:03:07] Trustee Patrick: and respectful workplace.

[0:03:09] Trustee Patrick: There will be a moment for the public

[0:03:10] Trustee Patrick: to have a chance to talk in a few minutes,

[0:03:13] Trustee Patrick: but first we have an agenda before us.

[0:03:16] Trustee Patrick: Are there any changes to the agenda?

[0:03:19] Trustee Patrick: I know we had a request of an applicant to remove.

[0:03:23] Trustee Patrick: Did we want to remove that for now

[0:03:25] Trustee Patrick: or did we want to discuss that a little bit at the time let's leave it on the agenda for now

[0:03:28] Trustee Patrick: good

[0:03:29] Voice 6: so

[0:03:32] Trustee Patrick: if there are no changes to the agenda can we approve the agenda through general consent

[0:03:36] Trustee Patrick: we're going to open up the meeting with the trustee reports who'd like to go first

[0:03:40] Voice 9: uh i'm happy to go first because i have uh really nothing to report since the last meeting

[0:03:45] Voice 9: so um i had to go over here i mean i i think what will transpire at this meeting is something

[0:03:52] Voice 9: something definitely worth taking note of

[0:03:54] Voice 9: and we'll have to have some work ahead of us,

[0:03:55] Voice 9: but I think in terms of reporting,

[0:03:58] Voice 9: Trustee Stamford is in a better position

[0:04:00] Voice 9: to do that than I am.

[0:04:01] Voice 9: Thank you.

[0:04:02] Voice 14: All right, thank you very much.

[0:04:04] Voice 9: Go ahead, Trustee Stamford.

[0:04:06] Voice 6: I would like to acknowledge before I get started

[0:04:09] Voice 6: that former chair of the Islands Trust,

[0:04:11] Voice 6: Kim Benson is here and I always welcome when she attends

[0:04:15] Voice 6: and we can continue to get your perspective.

[0:04:18] Voice 6: So I just wanna acknowledge your attendance here.

[0:04:20] Voice 6: um for my trustee report uh i'm going to focus just on specific to gambier i think the biggest

[0:04:29] Voice 6: thing that happened in the last couple of months is being dragged into the census um i hosted the

[0:04:35] Voice 6: former islands trust executive assistant laurie foster she came to the island to do a census on

[0:04:43] Voice 6: May 7th to 10th. We visited 230 dwellings on the southwest peninsula and it was quite the process.

[0:04:53] Voice 6: It was not expected to be that way. I don't think anyone understood from the away places where they

[0:05:02] Voice 6: look at the map of Gambier and just see flat. They don't see giant boulders or escarpments.

[0:05:09] Voice 6: we were scrambling all over trails and rocks and all sorts of things trying to get to properties

[0:05:15] Voice 6: but it was really valuable to actually see every property on the southwest peninsula

[0:05:20] Voice 6: and apparently they need someone to go back so if anyone's interested please go ahead

[0:05:28] Voice 6: and i do want to emphasize how important it is to fill out the census because our numbers for

[0:05:34] Voice 6: representation for funding is dependent on how those forms are filled out um another thing i

[0:05:43] Voice 6: wanted to highlight i attended the house on community forum uh that's an opportunity for

[0:05:50] Voice 6: everybody from whistler through west vancouver and bowen and the islands uh all the elected

[0:05:58] Voice 6: elected, locally elected people to connect with provincial and federal representatives

[0:06:02] Voice 6: and the Squamish Nation. There was the Ministry of Walrus, Water, Lands, Natural Resources

[0:06:12] Voice 6: or Resource Stewardship. They did an outline of the Squamish Nation land use plan, which

[0:06:19] Voice 6: was helpful for the attendees there and just provided, again, that perspective of the focus

[0:06:25] Voice 6: on 4th Street, and I did announce a couple of days ago

[0:06:31] Voice 6: on my newsletter to the owners that I will not be running

[0:06:34] Voice 6: because I was trustee.

[0:06:36] Voice 6: This is my fourth term, and I think it's time for new energy,

[0:06:43] Voice 6: new focus, but I do tend to run for the Richell District area.

[0:06:50] Voice 6: That's what I'd like to say.

[0:06:52] Voice 6: Thank

[0:06:52] Trustee Patrick: you very much.

[0:06:54] Trustee Patrick: I'll have a relatively short report.

[0:06:56] Trustee Patrick: the next trust council meeting is june 16th to 18th it is a virtual meeting the public uh comment

[0:07:04] Trustee Patrick: period will most likely be on the afternoon of the 16th the time that just the agenda is not out yet

[0:07:09] Trustee Patrick: and formalized but it's usually late afternoon on the first day so that would be june 16th

[0:07:14] Trustee Patrick: if you're interested in listening to the meeting you're welcome to listen to the whole thing or

[0:07:19] Trustee Patrick: if you would like to address the trust council your opportunity is then and you can do it

[0:07:23] Trustee Patrick: but virtually, which is always exciting.

[0:07:27] Trustee Patrick: The others, just last Friday,

[0:07:29] Trustee Patrick: we had our cross-border forum,

[0:07:34] Trustee Patrick: where we meet with Washington State

[0:07:37] Trustee Patrick: and San Juan Islands in particular.

[0:07:39] Trustee Patrick: I'm really pleased.

[0:07:41] Trustee Patrick: I think the island stress,

[0:07:41] Trustee Patrick: I think we kind of let our relationship dwindle a little bit

[0:07:44] Trustee Patrick: and we're back working closely together

[0:07:48] Trustee Patrick: because I think we're more alike than different

[0:07:50] Trustee Patrick: in this political time.

[0:07:52] Trustee Patrick: and our islands are not inseparable they are one one bio region and we have a shipping channel

[0:08:01] Trustee Patrick: zigzagging its way through the middle so there were three breakout groups last Friday one was

[0:08:08] Trustee Patrick: on economics one was on interrelations of indigenous bodies and the third was on oil

[0:08:16] Trustee Patrick: spills and i co-facilitated that with um uh justin paulson a counselor with with san juan so

[0:08:23] Trustee Patrick: it's good to see a lot of energy coming back into that area and um we'll see uh

[0:08:30] Trustee Patrick: with more renewed energy in advocating for more uh spill response equipment uh and

[0:08:37] Trustee Patrick: less growth in that area that goes through our islands all right with that it is uh your chance

[0:08:45] Trustee Patrick: chance to speak uh with us

[0:08:46] Voice 6: oh sorry

[0:08:48] Trustee Patrick: i always jump past that one and forget so many islands don't

[0:08:53] Trustee Patrick: have them but you're lucky so sorry okay okay stanford um

[0:08:59] Voice 6: so there's quite a bit more

[0:09:03] Voice 6: um may 5th i attended the ports committee um that's a quite an operational advisory committee

[0:09:11] Voice 6: with representatives from all the SCRD docks.

[0:09:14] Voice 6: There's nine docks in the Sunshine Coast.

[0:09:18] Voice 6: We did speak about West Bay and Hawkins,

[0:09:21] Voice 6: which are the ones that this part of Gambier are most interested in.

[0:09:26] Voice 6: West Bay, we're still hopefully on track for a new float

[0:09:30] Voice 6: and anchors for June 15th.

[0:09:33] Voice 6: And then Hopkins, although the Hopkins Pier has been restored,

[0:09:37] Voice 6: It doesn't look like much for $800,000 plus, plus, but it's all, it's underneath infrastructure

[0:09:46] Voice 6: has been restored.

[0:09:47] Voice 6: But what it didn't get was its float and that is coming in towards the end of this year,

[0:09:53] Voice 6: unfortunately.

[0:09:54] Voice 6: And the float has an impact on Gambier Islanders specifically.

[0:09:58] Voice 6: That's where they can drop off.

[0:10:00] Voice 6: It has been quite a long time since Islanders have been able to access that.

[0:10:05] Voice 6: and it is it is critical it's just how fast we can move with these projects so

[0:10:12] Voice 6: uh west bay june 15th hawkins closer to october and um looking forward to seeing the capital plan

[0:10:21] Voice 6: for all the scrd docs by the end of this year um which will give us a better sense of where

[0:10:27] Voice 6: we're at with costs and how to move forward with the docs in the future um the uh mainland we've

[0:10:36] Voice 6: had an official community plan alignment project where we're trying to bring seven ocps into one

[0:10:43] Voice 6: um we had the what we heard uh response last thursday which was asking the communities

[0:10:51] Voice 6: about housing density and location for further development on the Sunshine

[0:10:57] Voice 6: Coast. Just re-emphasizing that does not include the islands. It elicited about 500

[0:11:05] Voice 6: pages worth of responses anywhere from dense water population analysis, some of

[0:11:13] Voice 6: them were like 200 pages long just by themselves, to one or two sentences. It's

[0:11:17] Voice 6: about 600 people participated in that process and there's no analysis it was just simply what we

[0:11:24] Voice 6: heard and then next month we'll be getting more analysis through the consultants as to what it

[0:11:32] Voice 6: means how we can move forward um may 21st last thursday um was the final discussion around

[0:11:42] Voice 6: grant and aid for projects or community projects and we'll be releasing the information a couple

[0:11:48] Voice 6: of weeks about that um the upcoming board meeting the directors will be discussing the successful

[0:11:57] Voice 6: provincial grant for fire smart community funding and we got 1.5 million dollars which is excellent

[0:12:05] Voice 6: and i will be focusing on how this and other emergency programs will be able to how we can

[0:12:11] Voice 6: benefit remote and rural communities especially in the west house sound uh also finally i'll be

[0:12:18] Voice 6: i am pleased to be a part of the newly created gibson's ferry advisory committee this was

[0:12:24] Voice 6: developed in response to the loss of the bc ferries fire area advisory committees across

[0:12:33] Voice 6: all the islands vancouver island um it's quite exciting to be part of this we're looking at a

[0:12:40] Voice 6: different structure than traditional bc varies led structure it's more independent and we will

[0:12:49] Voice 6: be focusing on bigger structural advocacy style um problems challenges specifically with sunshine

[0:13:02] Voice 6: Sunshine Coast, but it will include Route 13,

[0:13:05] Voice 6: the route to Powell River and sort of that wider aspect

[0:13:12] Voice 6: service to this part of their routes.

[0:13:19] Voice 6: So yeah, that's a lot going on, but yeah.

[0:13:24] Voice 6: So I know, I don't know if you have any questions on it.

[0:13:27] Trustee Patrick: Well, I think I know Gabriela has also re-energized

[0:13:30] Trustee Patrick: their ferry advisory committee.

[0:13:32] Trustee Patrick: So I think I almost see some sort of regional phone call meeting or Zoom meeting with sharing

[0:13:39] Trustee Patrick: where other communities may be thinking about it.

[0:13:42] Trustee Patrick: It'd be nice to sort of see.

[0:13:44] Voice 6: So who can I contact?

[0:13:46] Voice 6: Because I'm really trying to, that's sort of my role is to try and push the idea that

[0:13:51] Voice 6: even though we're independent of BC Ferries, we can, the power is being able to connect.

[0:13:56] Trustee Patrick: Mayor Leonard's list of people who attended last year's pre-AVICC or pre-whatever meeting

[0:14:02] Trustee Patrick: know what that was i can't remember that was

[0:14:04] Trustee Patrick: ubcm or abicc but that meeting that he organized it

[0:14:08] Trustee Patrick: should be on there i'd say his

[0:14:09] Trustee Patrick: mailing list would be the right list well

[0:14:11] Voice 6: i'm just i i'm trying to

[0:14:12] Voice 6: keep it very specific so if i just have gabriel to start with oh

[0:14:16] Trustee Patrick: okay uh susan oh

[0:14:18] Voice 6: okay trustee yates

[0:14:19] Trustee Patrick: yeah

[0:14:20] Voice 6: i'll

[0:14:21] Voice 16: call her great okay thanks okay

[0:14:25] Trustee Patrick: well thank you very much now it's your turn i apologize

[0:14:30] Trustee Patrick: apologize for jumping over and just trying to move through the meeting it was a cup of it was

[0:14:34] Trustee Patrick: good coffee thank you delicious okay um so it's my responsibility along with the local trustees

[0:14:41] Trustee Patrick: to ensure this meeting is respectful inclusive and culturally safe space for everyone that means

[0:14:46] Trustee Patrick: we speak respectfully we will acknowledge concerns and questions without causing harm we'll uphold

[0:14:51] Trustee Patrick: cultural safety and we keep the conversation constructive I thank you in advance for helping

[0:14:57] Trustee Patrick: helping us with a respectful and productive meeting.

[0:15:00] Trustee Patrick: Your public comments,

[0:15:02] Trustee Patrick: this is like I said, your opportunity to speak.

[0:15:04] Trustee Patrick: We wanna hear from you at this time.

[0:15:07] Trustee Patrick: Later in the agenda,

[0:15:08] Trustee Patrick: we'll be making various discussions and decisions.

[0:15:12] Trustee Patrick: So what you have to say is important and we really value.

[0:15:17] Trustee Patrick: So always speak to the local trustees,

[0:15:20] Trustee Patrick: not the audience or staff.

[0:15:22] Trustee Patrick: Speak about issues, not individuals.

[0:15:24] Trustee Patrick: Be clear, concise, and respectful.

[0:15:25] Trustee Patrick: respectful, and anyone who would like to talk to us today.

[0:15:43] Voice 6: The SCRD does not manage New Brighton Dock.

[0:15:48] Voice 6: No,

[0:15:48] Voice 4: but the questionnaire that we submitted and the survey that we did for New Brighton

[0:15:56] Voice 4: Dock with the SCRD, there was a questionnaire that we did.

[0:16:04] Voice 6: so there there was a report the final feasibility report that came out about

[0:16:10] Voice 6: three four months ago yeah

[0:16:11] Voice 4: um

[0:16:12] Voice 6: i don't have anything new since then no so that right now

[0:16:17] Voice 6: everything uh with the regional district is they completed their feasibility study

[0:16:26] Voice 6: and there was no more activity planned but there will be it's all very vague right now

[0:16:35] Voice 6: but we've asked our MLA to convene a meeting with trusted parties and review what our options are.

[0:16:43] Voice 4: I recall there was a big meeting October 31st, 30th and there's nothing

[0:16:49] Voice 4: meant to be some engineering

[0:16:51] Voice 4: study from conversation. SUD doesn't have an update.

[0:16:56] Voice 6: There's no update from the regional

[0:16:58] Voice 6: district now. But I do know there's a meeting being planned with the MLA and the interested

[0:17:06] Voice 6: parties. So again, similar to the October 31st meeting. Hopefully there's new information to

[0:17:14] Voice 6: impart then.

[0:17:18] Trustee Patrick: Sorry, Lisa Millard, did you have a question? I saw your hand raised momentarily.

[0:17:23] Voice 13: I no longer have that question. Thank you. Thank

[0:17:26] Trustee Patrick: you. Sorry. All right. Anyone else that wishes to

[0:17:29] Trustee Patrick: to address us today? Go ahead Kim.

[0:17:31] Voice 3: I actually have two issues. One's a Keats issue and one's a Gambier issue. And they're just sort of introductory in terms of issues that may be coming before you, not right away, but potentially. So I'm not sure which one to do first.

[0:17:53] Voice 3: maybe you can choose

[0:17:54] Voice 3: the Gambia one you'll be talking with the community plan so it has more relevance to that yeah so basically my name is Kim Benson I'm a resident of Keats Island and I'm kind of here informally on behalf of my family

[0:18:18] Voice 3: family on Keats. Our family has, we've had three to five generations on Keats now, but

[0:18:27] Voice 3: we own 10 acres on the south side of Keats Island. And we're doing some succession planning

[0:18:35] Voice 3: for the future. And we're thinking of proposing to apply for the density bonus provision in

[0:18:46] Voice 3: the keats community plan um it's policy 5.17b and we are in the rural residential zone and what that

[0:18:59] Voice 3: provides for is that if an existing trail corridor or greenway buffer acceptable to the local trust

[0:19:08] Voice 3: committee is dedicated on the lot the zoning regulations may be amended to permit one

[0:19:14] Voice 3: additional dwelling unit on the lot and in our zone um the rural residential zone allows for

[0:19:24] Voice 3: one additional single family dwelling on lots that have done this and there's one precedent

[0:19:32] Voice 3: for it joe might be familiar it's the shepherd property in plumper cone they applied for this

[0:19:39] Voice 3: provision probably about 10 or 15 years ago and we're successful so I've been

[0:19:46] Voice 3: speaking with Marla's just about like if you were to do this how would it work

[0:19:52] Voice 3: and so I thought it might be helpful just to introduce you to the concept

[0:19:58] Voice 3: because you can see what we're trying to do this is Keats Island this is our

[0:20:06] Voice 3: our property and this is the shepherd so um and

[0:20:13] Voice 14: I can pass this around at the break or whatever

[0:20:16] Voice 3: but basically when Keats uh this is the existing road from Keats Landing that goes to Eastbourne

[0:20:23] Voice 3: right but before this road was put in when Hydro came in in the 60s there was this old right of way

[0:20:31] Voice 3: called reference plan 2618 which still exists and we call it the old road trail

[0:20:40] Voice 3: but it goes through our property but when this lot was created in the 80s it was extinguished

[0:20:47] Voice 3: and so our concept is to bring back a statutory right-of-way to make this connection because this

[0:20:56] Voice 3: This provides a legal connection.

[0:20:59] Voice 3: Basically there's a SCRD park right here

[0:21:03] Voice 3: and it goes right by there.

[0:21:05] Voice 3: And then this, some people call it the wandering trail,

[0:21:07] Voice 3: but it goes through the woods

[0:21:08] Voice 3: and you can get to Highest Peak and Bridgman's Bluff

[0:21:13] Voice 3: and down to Pebble Beach through that trail.

[0:21:19] Voice 3: So I actually have a picture of it.

[0:21:22] Voice 3: so it's already existing and it's it's already existing and uh it's been that way this way for

[0:21:34] Voice 8: so

[0:21:37] Voice 3: if you look here this is our driveway that goes straight down basically this property line

[0:21:46] Voice 3: and the scrd park is right on this side of it so this triangle park

[0:21:52] Voice 3: and this is the old road trail so you can see it's fairly well developed and

[0:21:58] Voice 3: if people have kept it clear all those years but anyway what I wanted to do

[0:22:07] Voice 3: here was just to kind of introduce this because there's a chance we might be

[0:22:12] Voice 3: writing a letter to you and providing a reference plan for your consideration

[0:22:18] Voice 3: probably in the not distant future.

[0:22:22] Voice 3: So that was the key issue that I want to bring up.

[0:22:27] Trustee Patrick: I want to thank you.

[0:22:29] Trustee Patrick: I just wanted to mention it was on,

[0:22:30] Trustee Patrick: I was chairing Gabriola last week.

[0:22:32] Trustee Patrick: There's a property there again,

[0:22:36] Trustee Patrick: future transfer into next generations.

[0:22:39] Trustee Patrick: And I said in some way, they're not a precedence,

[0:22:44] Trustee Patrick: but I said, you're also setting precedence

[0:22:46] Trustee Patrick: and how we look at multi-generational properties and the amenities and the things and the opportunities

[0:22:51] Trustee Patrick: to be giving to the community so i think there's you're not alone and there's other examples out

[0:22:57] Trustee Patrick: there of uh well

[0:22:59] Voice 3: the interesting thing about this right-of-way is that the dedicated width

[0:23:04] Voice 3: of the old reference which is almost 30 feet long although the trail itself is probably about

[0:23:13] Voice 3: probably about 12 feet wide and so the discussion in our family is well if we

[0:23:20] Voice 3: put in a statutory right-of-way maybe we should just connect the nine meters so

[0:23:26] Voice 3: that would actually create you know would make the dedicated trail you know

[0:23:33] Voice 3: still for pedestrian traffic but it would also probably provide them with

[0:23:37] Voice 3: there's a green light on either side so um anyway we're having surveying done and that sort of thing

[0:23:44] Voice 3: and the letter would come uh basically from my brother jay and my dad who are the title holders

[0:23:53] Voice 3: would be right writing the letter um probably within the next month or so

[0:24:00] Voice 3: and then yes oh

[0:24:02] Voice 9: i've actually got a couple of questions about me go ahead

[0:24:05] Voice 9: um uh one is um

[0:24:08] Voice 9: uh for ms benson and also for uh for staff which is uh are either of you aware of other

[0:24:17] Voice 9: similar dedications on that particular trail because you've mentioned the one that was done

[0:24:23] Voice 9: uh on the that plumper coat property but i'm just wondering if this uh the old trail that

[0:24:30] Voice 9: you've just described thank you for that it's good detail um if you're aware if there's any

[0:24:35] Voice 9: other property owners have done that because much of the trail as it heads east from your property

[0:24:41] Voice 9: is going through i think a very large undeveloped private piece of private property and i'm just

[0:24:46] Voice 9: curious if anything's happened on any other parts of the trail that are similar to what you're

[0:24:53] Voice 9: contemplating doing i

[0:24:54] Voice 3: can kind of show you that that was the interesting thing what gave us the

[0:24:59] Voice 3: idea was that this right-of-way still exists legally so through the corkham lands and the

[0:25:08] Voice 3: only place it was extinguished was when our lot was created in

[0:25:12] Voice 3: the 80s so we would just be filling

[0:25:14] Voice 3: in the gap right

[0:25:15] Voice 3: and so it would actually create a legal trail which is great because pete's i mean

[0:25:21] Voice 3: this is all private land and everything's private and when district lot 696 through through all of

[0:25:28] Voice 3: that i mean i advocate for years that that should not be extinguished and it should be kept for the

[0:25:35] Voice 3: future and we were successful in keeping that completed my

[0:25:42] Voice 9: second question is for the staff

[0:25:43] Voice 9: which is um kind of a complicated question um it first of all do we have a developed process

[0:25:52] Voice 9: for assessing these dedication applications

[0:25:56] Voice 9: if it comes up.

[0:25:58] Voice 9: Because I can see that depending on the circumstance,

[0:26:03] Voice 9: there could be some complications from the legal side.

[0:26:06] Voice 9: What Ms. Benson is talking about is availing herself

[0:26:09] Voice 9: of that section of the land use bylaw,

[0:26:16] Voice 9: except she's talking about treating that as a trail,

[0:26:21] Voice 9: whereas there's this other statutory right of way,

[0:26:23] Voice 9: which is a different legal character than that dedication and the reason i'm asking about

[0:26:29] Voice 9: developed process i i in a general way i wouldn't legal complications or anomalies to get in the way

[0:26:40] Voice 9: of a person wanting to make a dedication like that um and what i'm getting at is arguably the

[0:26:47] Voice 9: previous statutory right-of-way isn't a trail it's a road of some sort and could be under the

[0:26:53] Voice 9: of management of some government body and so uh i wouldn't that i wouldn't want a technicality like

[0:27:00] Voice 9: that to get in the way of dedicating the trail portion that ms benson is thinking right i know

[0:27:07] Voice 9: you can't answer that question now but i would appreciate it at some point uh after this meeting

[0:27:12] Voice 9: to provide the trustees with um a summary of what process we have for dealing with these things well

[0:27:20] Voice 10: like i've looked into it a little bit just in

[0:27:23] Voice 10: conversations that i've had over the last few

[0:27:25] Voice 10: months with kim so there's only one example to really look to and that's the shepherd property

[0:27:30] Voice 10: yeah

[0:27:31] Voice 3: so

[0:27:36] Voice 10: i looked so yeah looked into that a little bit but it is um the process would be they'd write

[0:27:43] Voice 10: a letter uh the ltc would review it support the idea in principle which kind of just gives them

[0:27:49] Voice 10: some comfort in going forward it's not a guarantee that the LTC will approve

[0:27:54] Voice 10: entering into the statutory right-of-way but just sort of in principle they hire

[0:28:01] Voice 10: a surveyor and then there's actually a statutory right-of-way template

[0:28:06] Voice 10: schedule E in the land use bylaw so look to that which lays it out get legal

[0:28:14] Voice 10: review and then it would come back to the LTC there was a piece which I think

[0:28:20] Voice 10: you were looking into with the scrd and whether i

[0:28:22] Voice 3: was talking with kate about that i said that

[0:28:26] Voice 3: uh things have changed with the scrd and that we would be writing a letter to the scrd in case they

[0:28:32] Voice 3: would be that and they would have an interest in it they have responsibility for the park

[0:28:39] Voice 3: that connects this so it's actually connects their park

[0:28:45] Voice 6: to you know for the public right and

[0:28:47] Voice 6: And the parks plan did come out last week.

[0:28:51] Voice 6: So I can get that.

[0:28:53] Voice 6: Yeah, you can get a sense.

[0:28:54] Voice 9: One last question to the chef and Nate.

[0:28:57] Voice 9: My understanding is that in the past,

[0:29:02] Voice 9: the process has been that the legal fees

[0:29:06] Voice 9: and other costs associated with doing the dedication

[0:29:09] Voice 9: right away all fall on the person

[0:29:13] Voice 9: who's gonna do the donation.

[0:29:14] Voice 9: Is that still the case?

[0:29:17] Voice 10: Okay.

[0:29:17] Voice 10: this yeah we have the templates um but then it would be up to the applicant to to get a legal

[0:29:27] Voice 10: review um islands trust may also want an independent of our own legal review of our

[0:29:34] Voice 10: own team i'm not exactly sure would

[0:29:37] Voice 9: we be imposing the cost of that on the applicant

[0:29:40] Voice 9: like as a as a charge for the process or is that something we just take in as a cost

[0:29:45] Voice 10: Usually I think it would be a cost recovery agreement, but I'd have to look into that more.

[0:29:51] Voice 10: Like I said, there's only been one before.

[0:30:00] Voice 3: Great, she sent us the staff reports

[0:30:04] Voice 3: from the Shepparton application.

[0:30:07] Voice 3: So we're gonna use that as our roadmap

[0:30:10] Voice 3: and we don't wanna really read the mail or anything.

[0:30:14] Voice 3: And the wording up there,

[0:30:16] Voice 3: the only thing is that they're dedicated

[0:30:19] Voice 3: with this is about three meters, right?

[0:30:24] Voice 3: So our things about how wide and all of that,

[0:30:28] Voice 3: that, but we would not want to do anything that's

[0:30:33] Voice 3: maybe complicated or different from what's already been done.

[0:30:37] Voice 3: And the trails, the statutory rights of way that were put in

[0:30:40] Voice 3: on district lot 696, go to Sam Rock and all that

[0:30:44] Voice 3: are also there, so it's just who would hold it.

[0:30:47] Voice 3: And so I

[0:30:48] Voice 3: think that's the biggest challenge is to see

[0:30:51] Voice 3: if we can do it with the local trust committee

[0:30:54] Voice 3: and the NCRD would co-hold it.

[0:30:57] Voice 3: We could maintain it, or it could be maintained. Nobody's ever maintained it but us.

[0:31:03] Voice 3: Any

[0:31:06] Voice 14: further questions on that aspect? I guess your next point.

[0:31:11] Voice 3: Yeah, the next issue is done here kind of on behalf of my niece. This is Hailey, that's an Armitage.

[0:31:20] Voice 3: And Hailey's children, Evelyn and Keith, are sixth generation Gambier Islanders.

[0:31:34] Voice 3: So they are part of a family holding that's near Gambier Harbour.

[0:31:42] Voice 3: And this is actually not just their issue, but it's an issue that came up years ago during

[0:31:49] Voice 3: the last OCP review.

[0:31:52] Voice 3: And I have a map here that just shows these highlighted lots.

[0:31:56] Voice 3: lots in the settlement residential portion of gambier the um the the ocp policy says that the

[0:32:08] Voice 3: uh for some for the purposes of subdivision the average lot area is approximately two hectares

[0:32:17] Voice 3: which is like five acres so you need a 10 acre lot subdivide and so what the problem is

[0:32:28] Voice 3: is that most of these lots were surveyed,

[0:32:32] Voice 3: I think it was 1910.

[0:32:35] Voice 6: 1911.

[0:32:35] Voice 3: 19, yeah.

[0:32:36] Voice 3: Yeah,

[0:32:36] Voice 6: everybody got it, yeah.

[0:32:38] Voice 3: And people who had those lots,

[0:32:40] Voice 3: including our family that had it for all those years,

[0:32:45] Voice 3: had what they thought was 10 acres.

[0:32:47] Voice 3: But then when people started, you know,

[0:32:50] Voice 3: thinking they wanted to subdivide their 10 acres

[0:32:53] Voice 3: into, you know, two, five acre lots or whatever,

[0:32:56] Voice 3: whatever and they were resurveyed it turns out there was a lot of serving survey anomalies and

[0:33:04] Voice 3: there are probably about 10 lots that are sort of thought they were 10 but they're really sort

[0:33:11] Voice 3: of between 8 and 9.9 or whatever and so this is sort of an issue because in the 70s when the

[0:33:21] Voice 3: original settlement zone was created and the five acre averaging was set as policy it was assumed

[0:33:29] Voice 3: that these were 10 that these were 10 acres and so the fact that they aren't and that anybody who

[0:33:36] Voice 3: wants to subdivide might have to go through whole rezoning and everything is you know a fairly

[0:33:42] Voice 3: honest thing now the awkward part was that at the time of the last ocp i was a trustee and the other

[0:33:51] Voice 3: trustee Joyce Clay she had one of these lots and my cousin Dick had one of these

[0:33:57] Voice 3: lots so we couldn't really you know we couldn't really say anything because I

[0:34:02] Voice 3: would be like conflict of interest but I'm no longer a trustee so I'm here to

[0:34:07] Voice 3: advocate that I think there could be a simple fix for this problem and it's in

[0:34:15] Voice 3: In the SR zone, right now it says under section 5.115 that the minimum average lot area is

[0:34:24] Voice 3: two hectares, but like in the rural zone, you could add something like 5.116 that says

[0:34:33] Voice 3: like despite 5.115, the minimum average lot area on lots shown on table five is 3.5 hectares

[0:34:44] Voice 3: or something like that and i think that that policy when you look at the policy in the ocp

[0:34:52] Voice 3: if i think the clue is that it says the average in the settlement area the average lot area

[0:35:01] Voice 3: for subdivision is approximately two hectares and i think that is what went into the ocp to

[0:35:09] Voice 3: kind of be enabling for some sort of areas on the overall lot size it wouldn't really create more

[0:35:16] Voice 3: lots for what the original community plan had but it would make it so that people that were

[0:35:23] Voice 3: stuck in this historic situation could subdivide without having a result so that's my sort of basic

[0:35:32] Voice 3: pitch so I

[0:35:42] Voice 6: think that's because that's very specific it does affect a number of

[0:35:46] Voice 6: Watson unfortunately it did affect former trustee Clegg's law and and did

[0:35:52] Voice 6: become quite difficult for her towards the end and just a notice that trustee

[0:35:59] Voice 6: Clegg did pass away about a month ago part of our meeting um minutes um so I think that would be the

[0:36:10] Voice 6: best way to

[0:36:11] Voice 6: see if there's any opportunity the armitages for many years about how to deal with

[0:36:20] Voice 6: that specific property

[0:36:21] Voice 3: that's and there were like a couple of other people like that during my time

[0:36:25] Voice 3: was a trustee that had the same problem

[0:36:27] Voice 5: and

[0:36:28] Voice 3: so you know i i think in a point of principle

[0:36:33] Voice 3: it's not a big fix but from your point of view yeah but i'm

[0:36:39] Voice 3: going to write a letter yeah that

[0:36:41] Voice 1: would be a

[0:36:42] Voice 1: good way to get

[0:36:43] Voice 9: i've got a question um you're talking about surveying anomalies um

[0:36:50] Voice 9: that's not actually unusual there's some of that happening on

[0:36:53] Voice 9: keats as well

[0:36:54] Voice 8: some of the surveying

[0:36:55] Voice 9: back in the 30s

[0:36:56] Voice 8: doesn't

[0:36:57] Voice 9: seem to have been optimal undoubtedly um have it's one thing to know that

[0:37:04] Voice 9: the survey thing was not done properly back in 1911 but have has there been a subsequent re-survey

[0:37:14] Voice 9: in a change uh with the land registry in terms of what the land registry represents as the size of

[0:37:21] Voice 9: the laws my

[0:37:23] Voice 3: understanding and from what i understand is that people who there were some

[0:37:28] Voice 3: people like uh my cousin dick who's uh haley's i guess he's your stepfather mom it's very common

[0:37:37] Voice 3: there's no

[0:37:39] Voice 6: like banjo sphere

[0:37:40] Voice 14: or anything but

[0:37:41] Voice 3: anyway i

[0:37:43] Voice 3: think they applied and i think joyce

[0:37:47] Voice 3: applied at some point and there was another guy sort of halfway to west bay that applied and so

[0:37:53] Voice 3: it was like well get us a current survey of your property when you apply so it was only upon

[0:37:59] Voice 3: getting a current legal survey that they discovered what it's it's not 10 acres it's

[0:38:07] Voice 3: 9.2 or whatever when

[0:38:09] Voice 2: you say applied applied for what a

[0:38:11] Voice 3: subdivision oh okay

[0:38:12] Voice 3: so they actually

[0:38:13] Voice 3: applied the subdivide and then to their horror and dismay learned that they didn't have what they

[0:38:18] Voice 3: always thought they had okay thank you so all right anyway that's a letter

[0:38:26] Voice 6: would be good explaining

[0:38:27] Voice 6: all this because it is very complicated the detail of it is specifics

[0:38:32] Voice 14: thank you very much and i would

[0:38:35] Voice 9: add that it might be helpful that if there are a number of property owners that um if it's feasible

[0:38:45] Voice 9: a kind of community application or a collective application

[0:38:49] Voice 9: by the affected people to sort of fix all this

[0:38:53] Voice 9: would probably be more efficient.

[0:38:55] Voice 9: Can

[0:38:55] Voice 6: I think it'd be, go

[0:38:57] Voice 9: ahead.

[0:38:58] Voice 9: Just

[0:38:59] Voice 16: one point on that.

[0:39:00] Voice 16: I think the people being affected,

[0:39:03] Voice 16: it would be really dependent on when they bought

[0:39:05] Voice 16: their property, like how far back it's affected.

[0:39:11] Voice 6: I think each scenario is very unique.

[0:39:14] Voice 6: unique, so I think it would be more effective for you to consider this property of interest.

[0:39:22] Voice 3: I think the point is that the Dick Atchison situation with Haley and Steve and their tenants

[0:39:32] Voice 3: income situation has been going on for years now and

[0:39:36] Voice 3: I think there's just been kind of

[0:39:38] Voice 3: we're going around in circles so my purpose and coming is just to try and address it as a point

[0:39:45] Voice 3: it's really a policy and regulatory thing that was not intended you know in the 70s when the

[0:39:56] Voice 3: original cp was done it wasn't intended so it's like a fix all right

[0:40:02] Trustee Patrick: thank you

[0:40:03] Trustee Patrick: you had another

[0:40:04] Trustee Patrick: And

[0:40:05] Voice 4: I do have another sort of follow-through and follow-up from the Local Trust Committee

[0:40:12] Voice 4: meeting from June 24, 2025.

[0:40:16] Voice 4: There was, Mark Kennedy had submitted in writing a report, it was from May 22, some neighbours

[0:40:29] Voice 4: had reported certain properties and I was one of the affected properties.

[0:40:34] Voice 4: and I want to follow up with the inquiry because I've been speaking with us here

[0:40:40] Voice 4: and the chief building officer there about what the dwelling means in our

[0:40:46] Voice 4: Islands Trust land use bylaw because we living on a rural island with not much

[0:40:55] Voice 4: infrastructure we have to abide by step code 3 which is outrageous and this is

[0:41:02] Voice 4: is not just me voicing it, it is hundreds of residents

[0:41:06] Voice 4: behind me to advocate that we need to change something

[0:41:12] Voice 4: in the by-law policy.

[0:41:13] Voice 4: SCRD said, hey, we don't need to worry about step code three,

[0:41:17] Voice 4: violence trust eliminates that entirely.

[0:41:20] Voice 4: For us to live in a 400 square foot structure

[0:41:25] Voice 4: that we want to call a dwelling, a home,

[0:41:28] Voice 4: it's because we've moved out of the city

[0:41:30] Voice 4: because we can't afford building these large homes that require step code 3-4, step 4,

[0:41:39] Voice 4: it makes no sense for us to then incorporate a heat pump.

[0:41:43] Voice 4: Paying an energy advisor $2,000 to come over here, you know, off the Sunshine Coast or Vancouver

[0:41:50] Voice 4: to say your 400, 500-square-foot building needs better windows and things like that,

[0:41:56] Voice 4: um there's hundreds of residents just just can't afford this and i want to follow up with

[0:42:04] Voice 4: the statement and the report that was sent forward on the june 24th 2025 meeting here

[0:42:12] Voice 4: has there been any follow-up with finding out if we can eliminate the step code 3 because scrd is

[0:42:19] Voice 4: is more than happy to step back

[0:42:21] Voice 4: and not have that part of our building an application.

[0:42:25] Voice 4: So I just want to find out if I trust where we're at.

[0:42:31] Trustee Patrick: I don't know.

[0:42:32] Trustee Patrick: I do know that the regional district in Nanaimo

[0:42:34] Trustee Patrick: came forward through the AVICC UBCM process

[0:42:38] Trustee Patrick: to say that a successful resolution

[0:42:43] Trustee Patrick: asking that there'd be a smaller,

[0:42:44] Trustee Patrick: you know, a different building code

[0:42:46] Trustee Patrick: or an opt out for the smaller structure.

[0:42:48] Trustee Patrick: So that's making its way through the advocacy process, but you probably have more specific.

[0:42:54] Voice 6: So that was the update that I had, and I think I sent you a copy of that baby ICC.

[0:43:01] Voice 6: My understanding is it is, has to come through the province and that it is an issue right

[0:43:09] Voice 6: across the province with this particular step code three.

[0:43:13] Voice 6: And then

[0:43:13] Voice 6: I think it's advancing more.

[0:43:14] Voice 6: there's another step code coming in and

[0:43:17] Voice 6: try to reduce the size or make sure this is size

[0:43:22] Voice 6: related rather than anything else because then that will allow for more flexibility

[0:43:29] Voice 6: especially with rural and that has been successful.

[0:43:34] Voice 6: I'm not aware that the SEERD was able to change the build like not include the building code

[0:43:42] Voice 6: but maybe that's something that

[0:43:45] Voice 10: I'm not aware of.

[0:43:46] Voice 10: It's not

[0:43:46] Voice 10: in Island's Trust.

[0:43:48] Voice 10: It's nowhere in

[0:43:49] Voice 10: our land use bylaw that it would be that code free.

[0:43:52] Voice 10: That would be a building code issue,

[0:43:54] Voice 6: which is nothing that

[0:43:55] Voice 10: would be enforced.

[0:43:56] Voice 10: So

[0:43:56] Voice 6: that's my understanding is it's not the SUD or Island's Trust.

[0:44:02] Voice 6: It's the province that's stating that this building code must be enforced.

[0:44:06] Voice 6: I mean, I

[0:44:06] Voice 6: got

[0:44:07] Voice 4: it in an email.

[0:44:08] Voice 4: I've got, you know, Brian Bennett from FCOD's chief building official.

[0:44:13] Voice 4: So

[0:44:13] Voice 6: if you could forward that to me.

[0:44:15] Voice 6: Yeah,

[0:44:15] Voice 4: I mean, he said if Island Trust doesn't or can eliminate that, then we can eliminate

[0:44:21] Voice 4: it

[0:44:21] Voice 10: off of our

[0:44:22] Voice 4: requirement with Gambier.

[0:44:24] Voice 10: So that's something different.

[0:44:26] Voice 16: Well,

[0:44:26] Voice 10: it might have been referencing if Gambier LTC opts out of building inspection, so takes

[0:44:34] Voice 4: takes on

[0:44:35] Voice 10: siting and use permits,

[0:44:36] Voice 10: that could be what he's referencing.

[0:44:40] Voice 4: Possibly, but it's that particular situation.

[0:44:43] Voice 4: So

[0:44:44] Voice 10: it wouldn't be, buildings are still required

[0:44:46] Voice 10: to be built to the building code.

[0:44:48] Voice 10: So any other islands that have siting and use permits

[0:44:51] Voice 10: and min and form B, they don't have building inspection.

[0:44:54] Voice 10: They still are required to be built

[0:44:57] Voice 10: according to the building code.

[0:44:58] Voice 8: However,

[0:44:59] Voice 10: there's no building inspector

[0:45:00] Voice 10: going over and inspecting that.

[0:45:02] Voice 10: so a lot of buildings are you know substandard um accommodation deciding a use permit is something

[0:45:10] Voice 10: that comes to islands trust and all we do is we check the siting of the building that is following

[0:45:14] Voice 10: the land use by law that the

[0:45:16] Voice 10: use is permitted we're not inspectors we're not going out and

[0:45:20] Voice 10: making sure that it's been built to code but it is still a requirement to do that so for

[0:45:24] Voice 10: insurance purposes anything like that it would be still required just so that's a

[0:45:30] Voice 6: it's almost like a philosophical difference it there's pros and cons to both ways of dealing

[0:45:37] Voice 6: whether you have a building inspection or you have sighting use there's still requirements

[0:45:42] Voice 6: behind it and philosophically it's whether or not um which avenue we go is what kind of

[0:45:51] Voice 6: development are we looking at and are we willing to sit with substandard

[0:45:57] Voice 6: um buildings that then may not be insured and the level of building that happens on this island

[0:46:08] Voice 6: does tend to be fairly complex not including older buildings but anything new right now

[0:46:16] Voice 6: is very complex so it's not a sort of one-off solution because that code it what it is it's

[0:46:24] Voice 6: the code

[0:46:24] Voice 8: that's

[0:46:25] Voice 6: causing the problem so that's why we're trying to work from a provincial level

[0:46:29] Voice 6: and say this code is not appropriate for rural residences of certain sizes i've got a question

[0:46:37] Voice 9: that way i've got a question for staff that relates to just what trustee stanford

[0:46:41] Voice 9: just mentioned right now and it's that um the honest trust generally we have a lot of rural

[0:46:47] Voice 9: properties um and as trustee sanford correctly pointed out the building code is not something

[0:46:53] Voice 9: the trust has any control over but um if it's true that the building code is in a sense arguably

[0:47:05] Voice 9: overbuilt for certain types of rural properties i'm wondering if there's some room well first of

[0:47:12] Voice 9: all the question is is the trust doing any kind of advocacy with the province with respect to fine

[0:47:17] Voice 9: tuning the building code

[0:47:18] Voice 8: if

[0:47:19] Voice 9: not uh is there um some room for us to do that now we'd have to

[0:47:25] Voice 9: think it through to make sure that the position we take respects the reality of of the islands

[0:47:32] Voice 9: but the point that's been made here you know in a general way is it's pretty valid which is if

[0:47:38] Voice 9: you're

[0:47:38] Voice 1: dealing with a

[0:47:38] Voice 9: rural property or we can get away or something like that yes you it does need

[0:47:43] Voice 9: need to be built to modern standards,

[0:47:45] Voice 9: if only for safety reasons.

[0:47:48] Voice 9: But the question is whether or not,

[0:47:50] Voice 9: how far you go in terms of energy and environmental issues.

[0:47:56] Voice 9: And it may be that some more nuance built into the code

[0:48:01] Voice 9: might be appropriate.

[0:48:03] Voice 9: So I'm wondering in this long drawn out question.

[0:48:07] Voice 6: I'll send you the resolution that was passed

[0:48:11] Voice 6: with a lot of support because this is a provincial issue.

[0:48:15] Voice 6: By?

[0:48:16] Voice 6: By AVICC, those TBCM.

[0:48:19] Voice 6: Sorry, I will.

[0:48:22] Voice 6: So there's conferences that municipal and regional

[0:48:28] Voice 6: entities, local governments go to.

[0:48:31] Voice 6: And Islands Trust.

[0:48:32] Voice 6: And Islands Trust, special interest local government.

[0:48:36] Voice 6: And one of them is AVICC,

[0:48:39] Voice 6: which is the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Community Conference.

[0:48:45] Voice 6: And we come together with like-minded issues and we pass resolutions

[0:48:49] Voice 6: that say we are all interested in seeing changes from the province

[0:48:54] Voice 6: on this issue as a region.

[0:48:56] Voice 6: Then it goes to UDCM, so Union of BC Municipalities for now

[0:49:03] Voice 6: because we might change it.

[0:49:04] Voice 6: That happens once a year as well.

[0:49:06] Voice 6: So all those resolutions from the regional entities go to the provincial entity, and

[0:49:12] Voice 6: then those are discussed at that point, and again, resolutions are, and so that all the

[0:49:17] Voice 6: entities are in agreement that these are issues of provincial interest, and we would like

[0:49:24] Voice 6: to see the province change or make adjustments or get rid of or add those kinds of things.

[0:49:31] Voice 9: And the trust is signed on to that piece of that?

[0:49:33] Voice 6: yes so that one was very well supported and avicc was last month

[0:49:38] Trustee Patrick: april vanessa craig who is the

[0:49:40] Trustee Patrick: electoral area director for gambier island was one of the proponents of that advocacy piece so

[0:49:46] Trustee Patrick: it came from an island gabriela

[0:49:49] Voice 9: gabriela

[0:49:51] Trustee Patrick: so we

[0:49:52] Voice 9: signed on is there here's a general question then

[0:49:55] Voice 9: and I guess it's for Cersei Stampert.

[0:50:00] Voice 9: Is there value in the trust doubling up on its own

[0:50:04] Voice 9: to say, look, it's a general issue that applies

[0:50:08] Voice 9: to all sorts of different areas in the province,

[0:50:09] Voice 9: but we have specific needs in the trust here.

[0:50:14] Voice 6: So that's a trust council question

[0:50:17] Voice 6: and that's prioritizing our work plan.

[0:50:21] Voice 9: I would

[0:50:22] Voice 6: appreciate being sent that information

[0:50:24] Voice 9: would be very helpful.

[0:50:24] Voice 9: yeah i'm sorry

[0:50:25] Voice 6: well i mean this you've got the chair council here you've got another person who's

[0:50:33] Voice 6: very clear on prioritizing our corporate work plan um these are really important

[0:50:39] Voice 6: aspects of what we do as a community as an entity so i think um i'm not sure the effectiveness that

[0:50:49] Voice 6: that Island's Trust has per se on that particular issue,

[0:50:53] Voice 6: I do think there's far more effectiveness

[0:50:55] Voice 6: at a provincial level because it's not unique to the trust.

[0:50:59] Voice 6: It's all rural areas in BC that are dealing with this.

[0:51:03] Trustee Patrick: Yeah.

[0:51:03] Trustee Patrick: And I expect strong.

[0:51:06] Trustee Patrick: My computers are like, what are they doing?

[0:51:11] Trustee Patrick: So no, I think I said I got strong support

[0:51:15] Trustee Patrick: at the island and coastal level.

[0:51:18] Trustee Patrick: I expect it to get strong support at UBCM in the fall,

[0:51:24] Trustee Patrick: which is in September,

[0:51:26] Trustee Patrick: because this is an affordable housing issue as well.

[0:51:29] Trustee Patrick: It's right down to it.

[0:51:31] Voice 6: That's how you frame it, it's a housing issue.

[0:51:38] Voice 4: We're really glad to hear that you're cognizant

[0:51:41] Voice 4: of this issue and that you're working on it

[0:51:43] Voice 4: through the various means that you have

[0:51:48] Voice 3: to do that.

[0:51:49] Trustee Patrick: I'm glad you

[0:51:49] Trustee Patrick: described it very well.

[0:51:50] Voice 3: I did.

[0:51:54] Voice 3: From the community point of view,

[0:51:58] how can we assist you to make that case?

[0:52:02] Voice 4: Because community advocacy is also very powerful,

[0:52:06] Voice 4: whether it's, you know, what would your advice be

[0:52:09] Voice 4: about helping you do what you're doing to advocate for that,

[0:52:12] Voice 4: or others, you know, when we talk to our MP

[0:52:16] Voice 4: community or mla or whatever and so on um because several friends might be more offended yes

[0:52:25] Trustee Patrick: um and

[0:52:27] Trustee Patrick: i think writing the ministry i protect look at which ministry it is that oversees the building

[0:52:31] Trustee Patrick: code i always always

[0:52:33] Voice 6: always copy and and i think we can talk about this as a community yeah if you

[0:52:38] Voice 6: want because this is just a small aspect of it it's a crd it's it's the province um but

[0:52:47] Voice 6: having spoke to hundreds of people supporting it get those names down honestly i think this is the

[0:52:54] Voice 6: most efficient way we we're thinking of doing it and that's why we work together as different

[0:53:00] Voice 6: regional districts different entities we worked it said one uh resolution because we want we want

[0:53:07] Voice 6: this to move ahead um so that's part of it so there there is different levels but always your

[0:53:13] Voice 6: mla this is a provincial issue so that's that's one way to go which i

[0:53:18] Voice 4: did reach out to mla

[0:53:20] Voice 4: by email uh discussion on the phone back in may about um and i think and speaking to scrd i even

[0:53:28] submitted a letter to the board

[0:53:30] Voice 4: of the sdr yeah um level it's just a property mine was built 2021

[0:53:41] Voice 4: Unfortunately now I'm abiding by building code 24 that has now incorporated this energy

[0:53:47] Voice 4: compliance report and then the SDRD support saying if I was to eliminate that piece from

[0:53:55] Voice 4: your building permit then you know we're not

[0:54:01] Voice 6: this energy.

[0:54:03] Voice 6: I think it's a little more complicated than that it's not

[0:54:06] Voice 10: true it's not the interpretation

[0:54:07] Voice 10: rotation i heard it just there wouldn't be a building inspector if you're inspecting

[0:54:11] Voice 10: making sure you did that but you'd still be required to build the code and

[0:54:15] Voice 6: that kind of

[0:54:16] Voice 6: process for us would be i have to go into our prioritize different um projects it's not

[0:54:25] Voice 6: something that can be done over one or two meetings just doesn't

[0:54:28] Voice 4: we don't want to see

[0:54:29] Voice 4: three thousand four thousand square foot homes being built here with you know heat pumps and

[0:54:34] Voice 4: things i mean that's going to destroy our you know like it's just 300 300 400 well low like

[0:54:43] Voice 4: there's houses that are being built so if

[0:54:46] Voice 6: you don't want to see large houses that's a whole

[0:54:48] Voice 6: other issue

[0:54:49] Voice 4: yeah and

[0:54:50] Voice 6: that's a different advocacy that's a completely different question

[0:54:53] Voice 6: all right

[0:54:55] Trustee Patrick: i think uh you know carry on having that conversation on the side and moving things

[0:54:59] Trustee Patrick: things forward, I think the province has strong support.

[0:55:03] Trustee Patrick: All right.

[0:55:06] Trustee Patrick: Well, thank you for your questions and comments.

[0:55:09] Trustee Patrick: They're important.

[0:55:09] Trustee Patrick: They do help us direct work that we need to do.

[0:55:13] Trustee Patrick: I'm going to carry on here.

[0:55:15] Trustee Patrick: I know it's noon.

[0:55:16] Trustee Patrick: I think we should make it a little bit further

[0:55:19] Trustee Patrick: before we take a break.

[0:55:20] Trustee Patrick: Although something's wrong with the audio

[0:55:22] Trustee Patrick: and I'll have to troubleshoot that when we take a break.

[0:55:25] Trustee Patrick: So this is scrambling to get the system working here.

[0:55:30] Trustee Patrick: Okay, so I'm going to move on. We have minutes from our March 24th meeting for adoption on page four of the agenda package. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Go ahead, Dr. C. Stanford.

[0:55:46] Trustee Patrick: So

[0:55:47] Voice 6: on page four, five, 4.3, electoral area director's report, there's just got this very

[0:55:55] Voice 6: minor, but the regional district pass or budget, which will result in an increase of $11 per

[0:56:01] Voice 6: a hundred thousand.

[0:56:02] Voice 6: That's an average increase.

[0:56:04] Trustee Patrick: So an average increase.

[0:56:06] Voice 6: So

[0:56:06] Trustee Patrick: Lisa, did you hear that?

[0:56:07] Trustee Patrick: First bullet in section 4.3 to include average before increase.

[0:56:15] Trustee Patrick: I've got that chair Patrick.

[0:56:16] Voice 13: Thank you.

[0:56:17] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[0:56:18] Voice 13: And then

[0:56:18] Voice 6: the third bullet down,

[0:56:19] Voice 6: it says all of the bridges at Clifffield Correctional Park

[0:56:22] Voice 6: were destroyed, most of the bridges.

[0:56:25] Voice 6: So

[0:56:25] Trustee Patrick: again, Lisa, third bullet,

[0:56:27] Trustee Patrick: just replace all with most.

[0:56:31] Trustee Patrick: So these are entirely could have been what I said.

[0:56:34] Trustee Patrick: Nope, that's all right.

[0:56:35] Trustee Patrick: It's good to have the record correct.

[0:56:37] Trustee Patrick: Any other corrections minutes?

[0:56:39] Trustee Patrick: Seeing none, can we approve the minutes as amended

[0:56:42] Trustee Patrick: through general consent?

[0:56:43] Trustee Patrick: Yeah. Thank you.

[0:56:44] Trustee Patrick: So we have the advisory planning commission minutes

[0:56:50] Trustee Patrick: from May 13th.

[0:56:51] Trustee Patrick: And I know we also got an email yesterday

[0:56:53] Trustee Patrick: of their hot off the press,

[0:56:56] Trustee Patrick: which we can consider later in the OCP.

[0:57:00] Trustee Patrick: Where are we going

[0:57:01] Voice 6: to consider that?

[0:57:02] Trustee Patrick: I guess with that, I'd look to staff on,

[0:57:07] Trustee Patrick: I guess that would be in the OCP section

[0:57:09] Trustee Patrick: cause it's related, but I'm hearing correct.

[0:57:14] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[0:57:15] Trustee Patrick: that's uh yeah yep that was planner zupanek so we'll uh

[0:57:18] Trustee Patrick: we'll address their minutes later okay

[0:57:20] Trustee Patrick: okay so that brings us then to the follow-up action list on uh section 7.1 on page 16 of

[0:57:27] Trustee Patrick: the agenda uh do you trustees have any questions about anything on the follow-up action list

[0:57:40] Voice 6: i'd love to know where our mapping or aquifer mapping is i'd love to have seen it

[0:57:46] Trustee Patrick: this term that's a good point yeah we never saw it on salt spring either i think it's been done

[0:57:52] Trustee Patrick: how's that i i understand the project was done but i haven't seen any of the results either on

[0:57:58] Trustee Patrick: salt spring from any of the work that was done

[0:58:01] Voice 16: um i'm not

[0:58:03] Trustee Patrick: sure i do

[0:58:03] Voice 10: keep asking

[0:58:05] Voice 16: yeah little

[0:58:07] Voice 10: nudges but i haven't heard yeah well i mean

[0:58:10] Voice 6: i i have asked before and um yeah it it is

[0:58:15] Voice 6: disappointing that i probably won't see this

[0:58:17] Trustee Patrick: yeah i have to i mean i don't know what when they

[0:58:19] Trustee Patrick: started the process like on north pender they gave a big community presentation and everything on the

[0:58:24] Trustee Patrick: results and then continued the mapping but never did any presentation so it is annoying yeah

[0:58:31] Trustee Patrick: perhaps we do need to make a new resolution or something to be a bit more prickly um because it

[0:58:37] Trustee Patrick: is valuable information yeah

[0:58:40] Voice 6: i'm not willing to make a motion at this point i think we've got so

[0:58:43] Voice 6: so much going on but yeah go

[0:58:46] Voice 9: ahead question which is you know it's been long standing now a request

[0:58:51] Voice 9: to initiate a request or to schedule a meeting with elected officials over at squamish nation

[0:58:57] Voice 9: yeah

[0:58:58] Voice 8: and

[0:58:59] Voice 9: i can see from the further on an agenda staff doesn't have any written materials about

[0:59:04] Voice 9: that for an update um are we getting an update of any kind or should we be talking about it here

[0:59:11] Voice 10: i can give just a verbal update so the um april 2024 fuel item there that the letters were sent

[0:59:19] Voice 10: out um i did get confirmation of that in march of 2025 letters were sent out requesting meetings and

[0:59:28] Voice 10: we never heard back related to the most recent um resolution that was passed in 2026 around

[0:59:35] Voice 10: around congratulating the Squamish First Nation

[0:59:37] Voice 10: on their new elections and wanting to connect.

[0:59:40] Voice 10: I don't believe that anything has been sent out

[0:59:43] Voice 10: related to that.

[0:59:46] Voice 10: That'd be good.

[0:59:48] Voice 10: But this first item can actually be shown as completed

[0:59:52] Voice 10: because that was them.

[0:59:53] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead, Trustee Samford.

[0:59:57] Trustee Patrick: I

[0:59:58] Voice 6: did follow up with...

[1:00:00] Voice 6: the representative that was at the House on Community Forum.

[1:00:05] Voice 6: And he was interested in meeting,

[1:00:09] Voice 6: but had no ability to consider timelines,

[1:00:13] Voice 6: given the onboarding that they were doing as a new council,

[1:00:19] Voice 6: and just to work through staff, was his suggestion.

[1:00:25] Trustee Patrick: All right.

[1:00:26] Trustee Patrick: Any other questions on the follow-up action list?

[1:00:27] Trustee Patrick: Is there anything the staff wishes to bring to our attention

[1:00:29] Trustee Patrick: from the follow-up action list?

[1:00:33] Trustee Patrick: No?

[1:00:33] Trustee Patrick: No, all right, then I'm going to carry on.

[1:00:36] Trustee Patrick: Should we start with applications?

[1:00:39] Trustee Patrick: Let me know when you want to take a break

[1:00:41] Trustee Patrick: and I guess we can do so after application.

[1:00:42] Trustee Patrick: We only have the one application that,

[1:00:44] Trustee Patrick: so I'm going to turn this over to staff.

[1:00:47] Trustee Patrick: This is a development variance permit.

[1:00:49] Trustee Patrick: It was a late item.

[1:00:51] Trustee Patrick: So this came in an addendum

[1:00:55] Trustee Patrick: and item 9.1.

[1:01:01] Trustee Patrick: Over to staff.

[1:01:02] Voice 10: So this is a application for a variance

[1:01:04] Voice 10: to increase the permitted floor area of an associated secondary dwelling from 92 meters

[1:01:10] Voice 10: squared to 144.8 meters squared on SR's own lot on the Grove Road. The applicant contacted staff

[1:01:19] Voice 10: a few days ago after the agenda was published and asked that the application be pulled from

[1:01:26] Voice 10: the agenda because they are requesting some more time to work through a few things and provide some

[1:01:33] Voice 10: more information to staff and i don't have any details on what the more information is that

[1:01:38] Voice 10: they're trying to seeking to provide but just that they've requested that this be deferred to a

[1:01:45] Voice 10: subsequent meeting so if the ltc would like to grant that request i think a resolution

[1:01:55] Voice 10: just that you'll defer consideration to a subsequent meeting you could provide a date

[1:02:00] Voice 10: So that gives a bit of a timeline or time pressure around that.

[1:02:07] Voice 10: Or you could choose to consider this application now.

[1:02:13] Trustee Patrick: Trustees, what would you like to do?

[1:02:15] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead.

[1:02:16] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead.

[1:02:16] Trustee Patrick: Trustee Sanford.

[1:02:17] Voice 6: I'd like to put a motion forward that the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee

[1:02:25] Voice 6: defer a decision on this PPP application.

[1:02:32] Voice 6: as per request of the applicant to, what's our next?

[1:02:38] Voice 3: Maybe I believe

[1:02:38] Voice 16: it's July 21st.

[1:02:44] Voice 6: Our next meeting, July 21st.

[1:02:48] Trustee Patrick: Oh, here it is.

[1:02:50] Trustee Patrick: July 21st.

[1:02:51] Voice 9: But

[1:02:51] Voice 6: I'm just-

[1:02:52] Voice 6: She

[1:02:52] Voice 9: hasn't made the motion yet.

[1:02:53] Voice 9: Okay.

[1:02:54] Voice 9: It has been seconded.

[1:02:55] Voice 9: I went through the application very closely

[1:02:58] Voice 9: and I do have questions for staff.

[1:03:03] Voice 9: and if staff prepared to respond to them today that's great if not i would just like to get

[1:03:09] Voice 9: them on the record and then get them into the file and get them answered if and when we deal

[1:03:15] Voice 9: with this matter yeah so should i proceed with my questions or

[1:03:20] Voice 6: do you want to i'm not i wasn't

[1:03:22] Voice 6: planning on yeah

[1:03:23] Trustee Patrick: if we defer it or do you want to defer it or you want to discuss it for a bit

[1:03:27] Trustee Patrick: first well it's just sitting out there it

[1:03:30] Trustee Patrick: hasn't been seconded so all right if you want to make

[1:03:32] Trustee Patrick: your questions go ahead

[1:03:34] Voice 9: uh first um i think there's a typo in the report where it says

[1:03:38] Voice 9: that each additional 0.2 hectare over 0.4 entitles an extra eight square meters

[1:03:44] Voice 9: uh the math doesn't work unless it's each additional 0.02 heck okay

[1:03:56] Voice 9: uh in the report it seems that the main argument of staff which is to deny

[1:04:03] Voice 9: deny the application, but regularize the fact that the accessory dealings already over the

[1:04:09] Voice 9: zone limit is that there's nothing in, in the bylaws that support the variance. I confess,

[1:04:17] Voice 9: I found that a little, I scratched my head a bit about that because arguably you could

[1:04:24] Voice 9: say that about any variance application. We're varying the application is to vary the requirements

[1:04:32] Voice 9: requirements and requirements are what they are so I actually think the the question I'd like

[1:04:38] Voice 9: answered is whether there's staff believes there's a possible I'd like to turn around

[1:04:44] Voice 9: whether there's a policy rationale in the OCP or the LUB read together that argues against

[1:04:50] Voice 9: the application obviously the rules are what they are and I'm not quarreling with how the staff is

[1:04:56] Voice 9: has has laid them all out in fact it's actually pretty clear that way but um the rules are one

[1:05:04] Voice 9: thing the question is whether or not there is a policy rationale in our bylaws that argues in a

[1:05:11] Voice 9: kind of meaningful way against granting the application but i appreciate there's nothing

[1:05:16] Voice 9: in there that supports it but is there really a problem and you know i'll be frank the reason i

[1:05:21] Voice 9: asked the question is that you know we're talking basically about you know 10 square meters a little

[1:05:28] Voice 9: over in an area that is previously covered by the deck i'm having a hard time seeing environmental

[1:05:36] Voice 9: or other reasons to get in the way and i appreciate the accessory dealings already over

[1:05:43] Voice 9: the zone limit but um that leads me to that third question which is policy 4.23 is pretty

[1:05:52] Voice 9: straightforward it's pretty clear as to why we want to have this limitation which is really it's

[1:05:58] Voice 9: about limiting density and to preserve the real character of the area and you know the concept

[1:06:04] Voice 9: here is that the building should be proportional to the lot so to me that makes sense but when you

[1:06:10] Voice 9: look at the lob there seems to be a tension in the lub because it on the one hand says i think

[1:06:16] Voice 9: there's this 25 limit uh on the total coverage but then for the accessory buildings it's quite

[1:06:24] Voice 9: a bit more restrictive such that where we're at today with this particular lot is they've got

[1:06:29] Voice 9: seven percent coverage so there's kind of a tension between the accessory dwelling

[1:06:35] Voice 9: aspect and um the the more general requirement the lud that it be limited to no more than 25

[1:06:44] Voice 9: so um my question it's a little hard to phrase is whether or not you know it's really related

[1:06:55] Voice 9: into that second question given this tension in the lgb and the fact that we're looking at what

[1:07:02] Voice 9: is now seven percent coverage basically what's the problem with adding another 100 square feet

[1:07:10] Voice 9: you know and those are basically my uh my questions as you you can tell i'm kind of

[1:07:17] Voice 9: sympathetic to the applications that of course those questions need to be answered because i

[1:07:22] Voice 9: don't really uh there may you know i'm going off the report there may be well may well be

[1:07:27] Voice 9: policy issues here that I'm not aware of that staff is so thanks for that I'm

[1:07:31] Voice 10: just gonna say just around the 10 square meters that the variance of their work

[1:07:36] Voice 10: that is requested is actually 52 square meters because that's what they're over

[1:07:41] Voice 10: in the understood yeah

[1:07:43] Voice 10: so it's more so I think that's what staff uncovered that

[1:07:46] Voice 10: well at first this looks like a 10 square meter variance in fact it's

[1:07:50] Voice 10: actually 52 square meter variance because it would already so much over

[1:07:54] Voice 10: So that isn't

[1:07:55] Voice 10: an insignificant.

[1:07:56] Voice 10: A

[1:07:56] Voice 9: fair point, but I should have been clearer

[1:07:59] Voice 9: what I was talking about.

[1:08:00] Voice 9: It's basically a little over 10 square meters

[1:08:03] Voice 9: over the status quo,

[1:08:04] Voice 9: but I fully appreciate the status quo is not exactly

[1:08:09] Voice 9: in compliance with the bylaws.

[1:08:11] Voice 9: I get that, thanks.

[1:08:12] Voice 6: Let's go ahead Trustee Stamper.

[1:08:14] Voice 6: The question to me lends itself more to the question

[1:08:18] Voice 6: we just discussed at the delegations was whether we

[1:08:24] Voice 6: are comfortable with four to six thousand square foot buildings which would not have any

[1:08:31] Voice 6: restrictions outside of the 25 coverage as opposed to smaller individual dwellings that have this

[1:08:43] Voice 6: multiple dwelling restriction on it and i've come up against this several times

[1:08:47] Voice 8: when

[1:08:48] Voice 6: we have legacy properties with four or five small cabins on them and by their very nature

[1:08:54] Voice 6: if they're completely outside of the bylaws and the variances are hard to accommodate because

[1:09:03] Voice 6: it's that density even though the use is the same given the type of use these areas have

[1:09:11] Voice 6: it's always recreational it's it's old families that have got these little cabins and that's the

[1:09:18] Voice 6: only way to use them and there have been instances instances where um property owners five or six

[1:09:25] Voice 6: generations on have had to sell the property all those little cabins that people were okay with you

[1:09:32] Voice 6: know they wanted a little bit of adjustment here and there have been sold and a ruddy great 6 000

[1:09:38] Voice 6: square foot

[1:09:38] Voice 8: pro

[1:09:39] Voice 6: house is being put on there um uh and there's no they're not outside of the

[1:09:46] Voice 6: the bylaws then you know and they can so it changes how our changes yeah

[1:09:51] Voice 6: so that's the kind

[1:09:53] Voice 6: of that's for me the bigger question of how we look at this and it's again it's again something

[1:10:00] Voice 6: i'm noticing not just at the islands trust but at the regional district is it's an issue um

[1:10:06] Voice 6: and why why and how do we get around that but

[1:10:11] Voice 9: anyway well that

[1:10:12] Voice 6: to me is what it what i came

[1:10:14] Voice 6: up well

[1:10:15] Voice 9: i'm glad trustee stanford brought that up because um when i was looking at the you know

[1:10:21] Voice 9: moving away from the application per se i was i was rather struck by the 25 number that's a

[1:10:28] Voice 9: big number

[1:10:28] Voice 14: it's huge and

[1:10:29] Voice 9: it's um it may be and i'm already going over my skis here because i

[1:10:34] Voice 9: don't know enough about it but it may be that um except from the application at the policy level we

[1:10:40] Voice 9: need to re-examine that and um perhaps like fine-tune it depending on the overall size of

[1:10:47] Voice 9: the property see

[1:10:49] Voice 6: what our options are

[1:10:49] Voice 9: sure i mean because you've got a 10 acre property

[1:10:52] Voice 9: you've got about 25 i don't think so there's some

[1:10:55] Voice 6: big properties out there so

[1:10:57] Voice 9: it may be that that

[1:10:59] Voice 9: that 25 number may have been appropriate in the past when there's kind of an assumption how the

[1:11:04] Voice 9: the island was operating, but it may be that it needs

[1:11:07] Voice 9: to be adjusted and become more granular to attend

[1:11:11] Voice 9: to different size lots in different circumstances.

[1:11:14] Voice 6: Yes, that is beyond this.

[1:11:16] Voice 6: Yes, but I, so I have.

[1:11:18] Voice 6: All

[1:11:18] Trustee Patrick: right, you want to make your motion then?

[1:11:20] Trustee Patrick: I made my motion.

[1:11:21] Trustee Patrick: Okay, so I second the motion.

[1:11:23] Trustee Patrick: Lisa, did you catch that motion to be deferred?

[1:11:26] Trustee Patrick: I just want to make sure.

[1:11:28] Voice 13: Yes, Chair Patrick, I have that motion.

[1:11:30] Voice 13: All

[1:11:31] Trustee Patrick: right, then it's been seconded by Trustee Bernardo.

[1:11:34] Trustee Patrick: Any discussion?

[1:11:34] Trustee Patrick: I just only want to have one comment I've noticed on other islands sometimes

[1:11:41] Trustee Patrick: an applicant when they they they go off and do more information and it may not

[1:11:48] Trustee Patrick: change the outcome and then they get more upset so I think it's just ensure

[1:11:52] Trustee Patrick: that staffs conversations with the applicant is that earlier indication

[1:11:57] Trustee Patrick: from the local trust committee if they're you know if they're planning to

[1:12:01] Trustee Patrick: do a lot more money on investing into more studies um might be better to come here from the local

[1:12:08] Trustee Patrick: trust me um that's

[1:12:11] Voice 6: why i wanted to just

[1:12:12] Trustee Patrick: give them a short timeline yes i

[1:12:13] Voice 6: think there's some more

[1:12:16] Voice 6: questions on this one okay i

[1:12:17] Voice 10: do know that the applicant is online if we wanted

[1:12:20] Voice 10: to hear the

[1:12:21] Voice 10: motions in the past so well

[1:12:24] Trustee Patrick: we haven't voted but

[1:12:25] Voice 10: it'd

[1:12:26] Trustee Patrick: be kind of funny to break them if we could

[1:12:28] Trustee Patrick: defer well

[1:12:29] Voice 9: we could hear from you yeah

[1:12:30] Trustee Patrick: do you want to

[1:12:31] Trustee Patrick: hear from the applicant okay i'm sorry i didn't

[1:12:34] Trustee Patrick: ask if you were there we've been having a conversation about you without uh inviting

[1:12:39] Trustee Patrick: you to the to discuss have you been um oh there it's kayla can you hear us yes hello hi anything

[1:12:55] Trustee Patrick: you wanted

[1:12:55] Voice 11: to add at this time I do not have anything I would like to add I just

[1:13:02] Voice 11: wanted to review with my client first before I go ahead and add anything else

[1:13:09] Voice 11: to the application but I time in and discussing that and I've noted your

[1:13:16] Voice 11: questions as well so I'll be sure to address those as well all right well

[1:13:21] Trustee Patrick: thank you very much we were about to vote on deferring it so if there's no

[1:13:25] Trustee Patrick: No further discussion.

[1:13:26] Trustee Patrick: I will call the vote.

[1:13:28] Trustee Patrick: All those in favor?

[1:13:29] Trustee Patrick: That carries.

[1:13:30] Trustee Patrick: So it's been deferred.

[1:13:32] Trustee Patrick: So thank you very much for being here today.

[1:13:35] Voice 11: Wonderful, thank you.

[1:13:36] Voice 11: And just to confirm that the meeting is July 21st?

[1:13:39] Voice 11: That's correct.

[1:13:40] Voice 11: Perfect, thank you so much.

[1:13:42] Voice 11: All right, thank you.

[1:13:45] Trustee Patrick: Okay, did we want to take a break for a little bit

[1:13:48] Trustee Patrick: before starting into this next item?

[1:13:50] Trustee Patrick: A short break?

[1:13:52] Voice 6: What, your next one is the-

[1:13:53] Trustee Patrick: Is the, for the OCP.

[1:13:58] Trustee Patrick: how long a break do you want to take i'll look to staff i'll look to everyone here

[1:14:02] Trustee Patrick: 15 minutes is that enough um yeah 15 minutes you're not running out to the local cafe no that's

[1:14:08] Voice 9: likely to be a discussion that requires some energy i'm debating whether or not we should

[1:14:14] Voice 9: have our just do our lunch break well

[1:14:16] Trustee Patrick: that's what we're talking about just taking a short

[1:14:17] Trustee Patrick: lunch break 15 minutes

[1:14:18] Voice 9: because uh let's try let's do 30 are you sure

[1:14:21] Trustee Patrick: because i think we're all

[1:14:22] Trustee Patrick: trying to catch fairies afterwards

[1:14:23] Voice 6: which is a hard out for okay yes the

[1:14:27] Voice 6: three okay so and we i mean

[1:14:30] Voice 6: we can technically keep our meetings going yeah um we have

[1:14:34] Voice 6: quorum um but i do want to respect sure

[1:14:37] Voice 9: all right

[1:14:39] Trustee Patrick: so we'll take a 15-minute break then for everyone eat fast

[1:32:35] Voice 7: Oh, I never worked on the, I never worked on

[1:32:38] Trustee Patrick: the, there's only one chord, Lisa.

[1:32:44] Trustee Patrick: Hi.

[1:32:45] Trustee Patrick: There is only one chord that goes to the camera.

[1:32:48] Trustee Patrick: You say there's a second chord?

[1:32:49] Voice 13: There is a second chord, so you're missing that as well.

[1:32:53] Voice 13: There's an audio chord and a visual chord.

[1:32:57] Trustee Patrick: Okay, let me double check here.

[1:32:58] Trustee Patrick: That one's here.

[1:33:02] I

[1:33:10] Voice 9: thought Sonia was going to be here today, but I guess she's attending remotely.

[1:34:06] Trustee Patrick: No, we're going to just have to suffer.

[1:34:08] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[1:34:09] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[1:34:11] Trustee Patrick: Are we ready?

[1:34:18] Trustee Patrick: Thank you so much.

[1:34:19] Trustee Patrick: All right, we're back from our break, and we're going to carry on.

[1:34:22] Trustee Patrick: we're at item 10.1 which is the major project for the gambier ocp and land use bylaw targeted

[1:34:28] Trustee Patrick: review the staff report is on page 20 of the agenda package and i see planner zupanek welcome

[1:34:36] Trustee Patrick: thanks

[1:34:36] Voice 12: so much quick audio

[1:34:38] Trustee Patrick: check well i think we can hear you guys are getting kind of bad audio so

[1:34:42] Trustee Patrick: uh either pull your chairs closer we can huddle all right go ahead

[1:34:48] Voice 12: you can hear me okay that's

[1:34:50] Voice 12: great yes thank you okay good afternoon this report is bringing forward two related streams

[1:34:57] Voice 12: of work that we're currently doing under your ocp and lub review project so the first piece staff

[1:35:02] Voice 12: are asking the local trust committee to provide some specific direction today on proposed amendments

[1:35:07] Voice 12: that you wish to see reflected in draft ocp bylaw number 163 it's attached number three in the staff

[1:35:15] Voice 12: report package we're particularly looking at language related to the indigenous indigenous

[1:35:20] Voice 12: acknowledgement that reconciliation and the policy direction that arose from our engagement with

[1:35:26] Voice 12: squamish nation secondly we're looking to proceed with the next phase of public engagement on the

[1:35:33] Voice 12: draft shoreline development permit area and those guidelines so we're looking to get some clear

[1:35:39] Voice 12: direction on how you'd like to proceed with that so we'll start with the amendments to the official

[1:35:44] Voice 12: community plan. The staff report includes the background and policy context that you requested

[1:35:51] Voice 12: of how we informed the draft bylaw language, including the recommendations from Squamish

[1:35:56] Voice 12: Nation and the broader Islands Trust reconciliation commitments that we have.

[1:36:00] Voice 12: We've also reviewed the two separate sets of trustee proposed edits to proposed bylaw

[1:36:09] Voice 12: 163, which were introduced at your last business meeting, but are attached as attachments one

[1:36:15] Voice 12: and two in this staff report, and we're providing a comprehensive analysis of how staff receives

[1:36:22] Voice 12: these edits to be either aligned with or narrowing the original recommendations that were received

[1:36:27] Voice 12: through the First Nations engagement, and that analysis is contained within the report

[1:36:32] Voice 12: for your consideration today.

[1:36:33] Voice 12: we're asking for clear direction on how you wish to proceed with specific amendments to propose

[1:36:39] Voice 12: bylaw 163 we also have some verbal updates to provide regarding the advisory planning

[1:36:47] Voice 12: commission meeting that happened last week related to public engagement through a specific

[1:36:52] Voice 12: survey on the draft shoreline protection area so we're proposing two in-person community

[1:36:59] Voice 12: community information meetings this summer, one on Gambier Island, one in North Vancouver,

[1:37:06] Voice 12: and one online, as well as the launch of the public survey, which staff has worked with

[1:37:14] Voice 12: the Advisory Planning Commission to receive their edits.

[1:37:17] Voice 12: You received those yesterday by email, so we were not able to include them as an addendum

[1:37:22] Voice 12: to this report, but I can bring them up on the screen if you wish to reference those.

[1:37:26] Voice 12: So if this is supportable by the local trust committee, the next steps would be for staff to finalize that survey and an accompanying public brochure, schedule the public meetings and incorporate any LTC endorsed amendments into the revised survey or the draft bylaw 163 and present that back to you at your July 21st meeting for consideration of first reading.

[1:37:55] Voice 12: I'm available for any specific questions that you have and how you would like to work through these two separate pieces.

[1:38:01] Voice 12: I'm happy to use the sharing of the screen to bring up either the draft bylaw or the draft survey questions, however you feel would be the most efficient use of your time.

[1:38:16] Trustee Patrick: Look to trustee, what are your thoughts on how to,

[1:38:22] Voice 6: Joe, do you want to go with the language first or the survey first?

[1:38:27] Voice 6: i

[1:38:27] Voice 9: would prefer that we address the language part first

[1:38:30] Voice 14: okay i'm not sure

[1:38:34] Voice 9: how we do the

[1:38:34] Voice 9: screen thing how we do the editing but how we do that with that to figure out this

[1:38:38] Voice 9: um

[1:38:41] Trustee Patrick: did you want to go you kind of went through the two pieces did you want to start then with the

[1:38:49] Trustee Patrick: trustee stamford's analysis or well or i

[1:38:54] Voice 9: do have some remarks i'd like to make about this but

[1:38:56] Voice 9: But if Dr. DeSantis wants to go first, you can go first.

[1:39:00] Voice 6: I'm just going to start off by thanking staff for the work they've put in to doing this.

[1:39:06] Voice 6: It's very difficult to thread this particular needle.

[1:39:10] Voice 6: And I would just like to say part of the difficulty, reading through it again and again, is as a trustee, I feel like I'm doing this blind in terms of what the First Nations are asking.

[1:39:25] Voice 6: asking. They're doing it through staff to staff, which I totally understand, but the

[1:39:31] Voice 6: end result of this is we're never really sure because they're not part of our discussion

[1:39:39] Voice 6: how we're managing to interpret what's going on. No disregard to staff because I'm sure

[1:39:50] Voice 6: They're doing the best possible job, but I do feel like we are a bit blind in this.

[1:39:57] Voice 6: And that's just the way this nation-to-nation process works right now.

[1:40:04] Voice 6: Excuse me, Chair Patrick?

[1:40:06] Voice 13: Oh, yes?

[1:40:07] Voice 13: We've lost your video.

[1:40:13] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[1:40:14] Trustee Patrick: Oh, I don't know what happened there.

[1:40:17] Trustee Patrick: We're good now.

[1:40:18] Trustee Patrick: So that's just how I like to start this off.

[1:40:22] Trustee Patrick: Yep.

[1:40:23] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[1:40:23] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[1:40:24] Voice 9: All right.

[1:40:25] Voice 9: Did you have?

[1:40:26] Voice 9: I do have some remarks.

[1:40:29] Voice 9: They're kind of general in nature,

[1:40:31] Voice 9: and I'm hoping that they'll help advance

[1:40:35] Voice 9: just the review of this language that was proposed by staff,

[1:40:40] Voice 9: you know, just help expedite things.

[1:40:44] Voice 9: First, I agree wholeheartedly

[1:40:46] Voice 9: with what Trustee Sanford just said,

[1:40:48] Voice 9: which is we recognize,

[1:40:53] Voice 9: I certainly recognize the reality

[1:40:54] Voice 9: that Squamish leadership has got plenty of things

[1:40:58] Voice 9: to deal with that are a little higher priority list

[1:41:02] Voice 9: than talking to us.

[1:41:03] Voice 9: But at some juncture, I think talking the trustees,

[1:41:10] Voice 9: whether formally or informally,

[1:41:11] Voice 9: there needs to be some kind of discussion,

[1:41:13] Voice 9: some kind of engagement with Squamish political leadership.

[1:41:16] Voice 8: That

[1:41:17] Voice 9: has to be part of this process.

[1:41:20] Voice 9: I don't think it's responsible

[1:41:23] Voice 9: responsible for simply not standing the hard work the staff's put into it to leave it to just staff

[1:41:29] Voice 9: staff we need at our end a better sense of the vision of squamish nation here uh and that will

[1:41:37] Voice 9: help us inform our decision making so that's a general statement another general statement I'd

[1:41:43] Voice 9: like to make is I want to get down to the nitty-gritty of the language of what's being

[1:41:48] Voice 9: proposed the ocp um the staff is quite correct to point out i have a more limited view on how

[1:41:55] Voice 9: the recommendations should be incorporated into the draft ocp so just in the exercise of you know

[1:42:03] Voice 9: how we go about working with suggested edits and that sort of thing uh i want to just put

[1:42:11] Voice 9: on the record that i like trustee stanford's suggested background context um it has the

[1:42:17] Voice 9: effect of adding finer granularity to the history and by doing that i think that helps

[1:42:25] Voice 9: um helps to kind of do a larger job of accounting for the perspectives of all the communities

[1:42:33] Voice 9: that are connected younger so just as a logistical thing i would favor um as we

[1:42:40] Voice 9: if we do go through this in terms of fine-tuning the language i would favor using her version you

[1:42:45] Voice 9: know as the starting point for fighting in the language uh the edits i had just suggested

[1:42:51] Voice 9: suggested before it was really came from uh i mean for the most part trustee stanford answered

[1:43:00] Voice 9: my concerns with her language but there's other issues in there that i would like to address

[1:43:05] Voice 9: um and there um it goes back to this more limited view uh that staff correctly point out

[1:43:14] Voice 9: So I do support the general intention behind the recommendations A1, 2, 4, and 5, but

[1:43:19] Voice 9: I've got a much more limited view with respect to how A2 and A5 should be incorporated into

[1:43:27] Voice 9: the OCP.

[1:43:28] Voice 9: I'll try to be brief about this, but there's really two reasons for that and it does explain

[1:43:35] Voice 9: a lot with respect to the kind of edits I had suggested in the first instance.

[1:43:39] Voice 9: First, I don't think it's open to us to adopt reconciliation as the overarching framework

[1:43:48] Voice 9: for all policy guidance.

[1:43:52] Voice 9: That's pretty big, overarching for all policy guidance.

[1:43:56] Voice 9: The LTC may well face future decisions where it's right and proper for the LTC to regard

[1:44:05] Voice 9: reconciliation as a dominant consideration.

[1:44:07] Voice 9: there may be decisions where it's like that.

[1:44:11] Voice 9: And I think it's fair to say,

[1:44:14] Voice 9: arguably at least, that DRIPA added reconciliation

[1:44:16] Voice 9: to our mandate under Section 3.

[1:44:18] Voice 9: I mean, that's a net effect of that thing.

[1:44:21] Voice 9: But what it didn't do, it didn't displace Section 3,

[1:44:24] Voice 9: is it certainly didn't make reconciliation

[1:44:26] Voice 9: the predominant mission of the trust.

[1:44:31] Voice 9: So if we went ahead and made reconciliation

[1:44:34] Voice 9: the overarching framework in the OCP

[1:44:37] Voice 9: for how the LTC approaches every single land use decision on Gambier,

[1:44:44] Voice 9: that, in effect, is hardwiring a bias into the decision-making process.

[1:44:50] Voice 9: And I don't believe we're allowed to do that.

[1:44:52] Voice 9: That, I think, adds up to the fettering of discretion.

[1:44:55] Voice 9: The statutory role we have is to approach every decision with an open mind

[1:45:00] Voice 9: to best balance what are different interests and values

[1:45:04] Voice 9: that's taken in a given situation.

[1:45:05] Voice 9: So that's why, you know, when I was flailing around with my proposed edits, I went in the direction of using where appropriate language when we talked about treating reconciliation as part of the policy framework.

[1:45:23] Voice 9: So that's with respect to the A2 issue.

[1:45:27] Voice 9: With respect to A5, and this is difficult because it's getting into some pretty deep waters here.

[1:45:41] Voice 9: But I don't think it's appropriate either for the OCP to really to refer the First Nation title issue at all.

[1:45:51] Voice 9: A5 is, in effect, talking about how settlement was adversely affected by, or sorry, First Nation title was adversely affected by settlement.

[1:46:04] Voice 9: It's an indisputable fact that settlement occurred without very much regard at all for

[1:46:09] Voice 9: the rights and interests of First Nations.

[1:46:12] Voice 9: But when it comes to the question of First Nation title, it's very technical, at the

[1:46:19] Voice 9: risk of seeming overly legalistic and a historical nerve.

[1:46:23] Voice 9: It's actually the other way around.

[1:46:25] Voice 9: The concept of First Nations emerged under our legal and constitutional system as a remedy,

[1:46:31] Voice 9: in fact the main remedy to correct the unjust effects of settlement um yes there's you know

[1:46:42] Voice 9: again deep waters there's a lot of different arguments that can be made but at the end of

[1:46:47] Voice 9: the day debating on whether or not first nation title existed but you know before settlement or

[1:46:53] Voice 9: something like that that gets us into kind of a whole political debate where we just don't belong

[1:46:58] Voice 9: and um again i want to repeat i do believe that reconciliation should be one of our prime

[1:47:08] Voice 9: policy considerations in decision making but um it's um talking about title um again it's

[1:47:22] Voice 9: appropriate for the ocp to observe that settlement mostly occurred without consideration in rights

[1:47:27] Voice 9: in each of its First Nations, but it's inaccurate to say that it was a title, First Nation title was

[1:47:34] Voice 9: affected by settlement because basically the concept didn't even exist at the time.

[1:47:40] Voice 9: That's something that's been retroactively interpreted as a result of Supreme Court

[1:47:44] Voice 9: candidate decisions. So again, I'm getting a little nerdy about this, but what I don't want

[1:47:50] Voice 9: us to do is to get into an area that we really don't belong because at the end of the day,

[1:47:55] Voice 9: as a decision-making body the local trust committee is not entitled to have any kind

[1:48:02] Voice 9: of actionable opinion about a matter that falls entirely outside of our jurisdiction and by what

[1:48:07] Voice 9: i mean about that is we have actually nothing to say we can't make decisions that affect title

[1:48:13] Voice 9: one way or the other that's what i mean by having an actionable opinion so i don't know why we would

[1:48:18] Voice 9: say anything about title in the ocp which is really setting a framework for decision making

[1:48:23] Voice 9: To the extent that First Nation title is a live issue for a First Nation like Squamish or Squamish Nation or any other nation that has an interest in Dandruff, we're really the bystanders to a process of either negotiation or litigation that gets sorted out with the provincial and federal crowns.

[1:48:42] Voice 9: We're subordinate to the province.

[1:48:44] Voice 9: It's not for us to take a position one way or the other, even if we want.

[1:48:49] Voice 9: Even if we have a sense of, even at the LTC level, we might well, in some circumstance,

[1:48:57] Voice 9: think that it's appropriate to take on an advocacy position.

[1:49:01] Voice 9: But I don't think that that belongs in the OCP.

[1:49:05] Voice 9: And then once First Nation Title is established, again, we've got nothing to say about it.

[1:49:10] Voice 9: It's just part of the background.

[1:49:11] Voice 9: It's a fact we have to live with.

[1:49:14] Voice 9: So I've gone a bit at length about that.

[1:49:16] Voice 9: I'm sorry about that.

[1:49:17] Voice 9: but that's that's um that's where i'm at uh i don't think uh definitely we should be referring

[1:49:25] Voice 9: to how settlement um affected rights and interests i don't think we should be talking about title

[1:49:32] Voice 9: and i really don't think that it's appropriate to adopt reconciliation as some kind of predominant

[1:49:41] Voice 9: overarching principle that applies to all decisions all the time with respect to land use on

[1:49:47] Voice 9: Thank you, Andrea.

[1:49:48] Voice 9: Thanks.

[1:49:52] All

[1:49:55] Trustee Patrick: right, well, go ahead Trustee Stamford.

[1:50:01] Voice 6: The things I never thought I would be

[1:50:04] Voice 6: having to address at a level,

[1:50:08] Voice 6: and I'm not a lawyer,

[1:50:12] Voice 6: and this is being profoundly adjusting

[1:50:16] Voice 6: for me to respond at this level.

[1:50:22] Voice 6: First of all, I really appreciate Trustee Bernardo's outline of working with the language

[1:50:33] Voice 6: that I had proposed and understanding the intent of it.

[1:50:39] Voice 6: Generally when I put in the suggested edits, it was around community perception.

[1:50:46] Voice 6: perception it wasn't so much about the legalese of it or the bylaw it's more if I was to read an

[1:50:55] Voice 6: OCP that affected my my land how would I like to sit within it you know it's it's making these

[1:51:05] Voice 6: documents a bit more readable and this this particular document needs a lot more work in

[1:51:11] Voice 6: bigger sense so i appreciate that that was understood where my language is coming from

[1:51:17] Voice 6: um i i do recognize um i think there's lang ways that we can

[1:51:25] Voice 6: adjust the language around the overarching primacy of um reconciliation in every aspect of the ocp

[1:51:37] Voice 6: and how we apply it i think using the words where appropriate is a little weak but if we could find

[1:51:46] Voice 6: different words to acknowledge it so i was thinking in terms of specifics like if we were to

[1:51:52] Voice 6: look at a um a restaurant and we're determining how many um tables or can be served at restaurant

[1:52:02] Voice 6: which is things that we do acknowledge on a certain applications we would not

[1:52:08] Voice 6: be taking reconciliation as a primary consideration of that kind of decision

[1:52:14] Voice 6: so those are as kind of the examples I was thinking of is where there are going

[1:52:19] Voice 6: to be decisions based on the OCP that do not involve reconciliation on the other

[1:52:26] Voice 6: hand I think we need to be a little bit stronger than where appropriate we need

[1:52:30] Voice 6: to really recognize that this is land planning generally this is land use and squamish nation

[1:52:37] Voice 6: has a specific interest in this island in terms of land planning so um i'm hoping we can come up

[1:52:45] Voice 6: with some kind of middle road on how we change those words um

[1:52:51] Trustee Patrick: maybe we can talk on that one for

[1:52:54] Trustee Patrick: moment because i i've given that i mean it's i think the principle of saying it's the overarching

[1:53:06] Trustee Patrick: framework sets up the conversations of the meaningful relationships with the nation to

[1:53:12] Trustee Patrick: be able to say these type of applications we're not interested in like the example you gave of

[1:53:17] Trustee Patrick: tables and so it it did exist in in that framework being the conversation occurred um and we set you

[1:53:27] Trustee Patrick: know together that these type of applications we want to hear about these we don't

[1:53:33] Voice 6: so and so how

[1:53:35] Voice 6: do we balance that kind of language to imply that everyone is has an important place at the table

[1:53:44] Voice 6: for me use tables let's dictate um and that one is not um overriding everything else um for instance

[1:53:53] Voice 6: since, you know, how we work with ecosystem knowledge is intertwined, it's not one over

[1:54:00] Voice 6: the other, necessarily. So I want to acknowledge that. So that was the first aspect. And I hope

[1:54:07] Voice 6: just give me a chance to finish the second one. And then with the A5, that's one I disagree with.

[1:54:16] Voice 6: I think Squamish Nation, rights and title is got a whole department, rights and title,

[1:54:24] Voice 6: I think it's going to be really hard to talk to them if we can't acknowledge the word title.

[1:54:29] Voice 6: This is a big part of what the nation is in this area. They're asserting their rights and title.

[1:54:37] Voice 6: It is considered a reasonable term to use beyond the specific legalese. It's used all the time.

[1:54:46] Voice 6: It is used in other OCPs.

[1:54:49] Voice 6: I think we can get beyond the specifics of that term in benefiting the overarching relationship

[1:55:01] Voice 6: that we have with Squamish Nation.

[1:55:02] Voice 6: I think that would very, very definitely change our relationship with them if we cannot even

[1:55:10] Voice 6: acknowledge that word.

[1:55:11] Voice 6: So that's the one that I have the most difficulty changing.

[1:55:15] Voice 6: I think rights and title is an appropriate term to be able to use in our OCP how that then

[1:55:22] Voice 6: translates into the land use bylaw that's where we get into specifics so those are the two like

[1:55:28] Voice 6: in response to this how we go forward I don't know but I'm hoping that we can at least come

[1:55:36] Voice 6: to accommodation how we for a to how we define that in a way that makes sense for everybody

[1:55:45] Voice 6: I

[1:55:47] Trustee Patrick: was going to say would it help to look at the language now that's that's no not

[1:55:51] Trustee Patrick: yet okay I

[1:55:53] Voice 9: think we should try to set the the baseline vote where the maximum

[1:56:02] Voice 9: agreement is here before we start filling the language the first point in

[1:56:07] Voice 9: response where Trustee Stamford's coming from is yeah I'm gonna take your point

[1:56:12] Voice 9: where appropriate it's a little soft it's kind of like a bucket into which

[1:56:16] Voice 9: you can throw anything you know at the time when i was doing the edits last time um you know not a

[1:56:24] Voice 9: lot of time available to us

[1:56:25] Voice 8: yeah i'm kind of scrambling to figure out

[1:56:27] Voice 9: figure it out and

[1:56:28] Voice 9: really i mean let's be clear about something i think both of us in our head in our suggestions

[1:56:33] Voice 9: we're trying to start a conversation you know i certainly wasn't stuck on on any of this stuff

[1:56:40] Voice 9: that's why today i've gone to the effort to try to explain where i'm coming from the principle

[1:56:45] Voice 9: My mind is open to coming up with language that clarifies what we're trying to do here

[1:56:56] Voice 9: in terms of respecting reconciliation and trying to advance it, but in a more specific

[1:57:01] Voice 9: way.

[1:57:02] Voice 9: For example, I'm not able to come up with them like today, but there may well be a number

[1:57:11] Voice 9: number of specific areas that we can identify ahead of time like categories where reconciliation

[1:57:19] Voice 9: should be the overarching principle for example heritage archaeological stuff again I don't get

[1:57:28] Voice 9: over my skis here and start getting into things I don't know what I'm talking about but um instead

[1:57:35] Voice 9: of just saying the overarching principle it's like look in these areas this should be the overarching

[1:57:41] Voice 9: chain guidance for policy you know so i'd feel a lot more comfortable if we could be more specific

[1:57:48] Voice 9: because then those areas and i don't think we should be specific of the areas where it isn't

[1:57:54] Voice 9: because you know you never know what comes up so some specific areas with also a general

[1:58:02] Voice 9: sweep in thing that says and any other areas were appropriate you know just to open it up

[1:58:09] Voice 9: as much as possible something like that might work with respect to the title issue yes i know

[1:58:17] Voice 9: you know this is the problem which is it's like um for me at least is that i am reading it in a

[1:58:24] Voice 9: more what i believe to be a kind of a more narrow legalistic way um but i'm also aware that the word

[1:58:33] Voice 9: title over the past 20 years and so it's taken on a kind of a much more larger

[1:58:44] Voice 9: meaning and it carries a lot of weight in that larger meaning but I am hung up

[1:58:53] Voice 9: on like what are we saying when we refer to title and again I'd be a little bit

[1:58:58] Voice 9: more comfortable if we first we understood what exactly what's gone

[1:59:06] Voice 9: nation means by it in terms of its legal consequences and if we somehow defined

[1:59:11] Voice 9: it within the OCP and the reason I'm saying that is the OCP once it's passed

[1:59:22] Voice 9: is going to have legal effect it's going to be something that is going to it's

[1:59:27] Voice 9: going to bind the local trust council in how we pass by laws and also how staff

[1:59:35] Voice 9: interprets them, and what does title actually mean?

[1:59:40] Voice 9: So I'd feel a lot more comfortable

[1:59:42] Voice 9: if we had some kind of definition of it in there.

[1:59:48] Voice 9: I'm not expecting we would do that today, by the way.

[1:59:51] Voice 9: Well,

[1:59:52] Voice 14: we kind of have to get to this.

[1:59:53] Trustee Patrick: Well, I think for one,

[1:59:54] Trustee Patrick: the first piece about reconciliation as a framework,

[1:59:56] Trustee Patrick: in the proposed language, it does narrow it down.

[2:00:00] Trustee Patrick: So it already does that on page 39 on the draft, unedited draft, says reconciliation is a planning framework, and for the purposes of this plan, reconciliation and land use planning includes, and it has building respectful relationships, recognizing Indigenous rights and interests, supporting the protection of cultural, ecological, and archaeological values, and integrating Indigenous knowledge into planning and decision making.

[2:00:26] Trustee Patrick: so it does

[2:00:27] Trustee Patrick: already frame and not just have a you know a general statement like

[2:00:33] Trustee Patrick: the practice so I think it is it has

[2:00:42] Voice 8: a dressing for issue it's on page

[2:00:43] Trustee Patrick: 39 if we

[2:00:45] Trustee Patrick: look at the unedited version reconciliation as a planning framework

[2:00:51] Trustee Patrick: so it does bring that down

[2:00:58] Voice 9: well um so that's one way of reading it i i still think that's

[2:01:07] Voice 9: that's pretty general in terms of what it says is that it's providing planning framework and

[2:01:11] Voice 9: the thing that modifies the whole thing is the fact that we have language in this draft that

[2:01:17] Voice 9: talks about an overarching framework let's not kill ourselves what that means so

[2:01:22] Voice 5: let's go back

[2:01:23] Voice 5: to that specific place where it says that well

[2:01:32] Voice 9: i'm wondering if we should if we can if we can

[2:01:34] Voice 9: do that by following the draft that trustee stanford prepared and

[2:01:40] Voice 6: start with that yeah

[2:01:42] Voice 9: to use that as a starting point which is

[2:01:57] Voice 5: going to take a while folks

[2:02:00] Trustee Patrick: so this is on page starts on page 26 is

[2:02:09] Voice 6: that where it says reconciliation is a planning

[2:02:14] Voice 6: framework that's 28 so again I mean as we look at this it's very hard to see it

[2:02:34] Voice 6: in just sitting by itself I see this in terms of the whole document and I do see

[2:02:41] Voice 6: this document as a visionary expression of the community the legalese part of it

[2:02:47] Voice 6: although it's part of it is not the overriding purpose that comes in the

[2:02:53] Voice 6: land use pilots that's where the legal aspect of it i i don't see this as being held to the same

[2:03:01] Voice 6: level of scrutiny because there's so much in this ocp right now that is it's just wide open

[2:03:10] Voice 8: and

[2:03:12] Voice 6: although it's lessened our overall effectiveness it hasn't legally been a problem so

[2:03:19] Voice 6: So that's where I think the difference in how I see the official community plan is.

[2:03:26] Voice 6: Definitely in the specifics of the land use by-law, that's where it gets down to the nuts

[2:03:32] Voice 6: and bolts.

[2:03:32] Voice 6: But

[2:03:33] Voice 9: my question for Trustee Stamford is, why are we giving less weight to the legal

[2:03:46] Voice 9: impact?

[2:03:46] Voice 9: I appreciate it's an attempt to have a visionary document and to set out a vision for the future,

[2:03:52] Voice 9: future. But the fact of the matter is it's still a bylaw. It has a legal effect. It's

[2:03:58] Voice 9: not just nice words that LUBs are supposed to follow. It binds a local trust committee

[2:04:04] Voice 9: and it binds what the provisions of the LUB should look like. What it means is if you

[2:04:11] Voice 9: have language like overarching framework, it means every decision that you make with

[2:04:15] Voice 9: respect to the LUB, staff is going to come back to us and say, we have to run it through

[2:04:20] Voice 9: the overarching analysis machine so let's and because that's what they do now with ocps

[2:04:27] Voice 9: and and the ocp has an effect and i'm you know my points are pretty simple which is yes

[2:04:33] Voice 9: reconciliation is incredibly important so

[2:04:36] Voice 6: using yeah i'm using this i'm going to start with

[2:04:41] Voice 6: what i put down last month where does it start with the overarching um

[2:04:49] Voice 9: well it starts with

[2:04:50] Voice 9: with, you know, we could just take the edits one by one

[2:04:52] Voice 9: and sequence, you know, my preference was, you know,

[2:04:59] Voice 9: with respect to 2.1 by, you know,

[2:05:07] Voice 9: if we're gonna be respectful, like, you know,

[2:05:09] Voice 9: what I'm trying to get at there is we'll use the Squamish

[2:05:12] Voice 9: nation for the island and the Gambier Island

[2:05:14] Voice 9: throughout will end up being the secondary thing.

[2:05:18] Voice 9: I don't think there's any objectionable with that.

[2:05:20] Voice 9: Then, and then you followed up with

[2:05:27] Voice 9: you're changed to 2.2

[2:05:29] Voice 8: and

[2:05:30] Voice 9: I think that's fine I mean I don't have any problem

[2:05:35] Voice 9: with that it makes a lot of sense to me so so

[2:05:38] Voice 6: I added in respectful engagement

[2:05:39] Voice 6: with indigenous governing bodies cultural heritage indigenous ecological

[2:05:43] Voice 6: management yeah

[2:05:44] Voice 9: I think that was missing you put it in so yeah

[2:05:47] Voice 6: so

[2:05:48] Voice 9: no and then

[2:05:50] Voice 6: 2.3 2

[2:05:51] Voice 9: .3 is a typo I think it says following new subscription in

[2:05:57] Voice 9: in immediately I don't think it belongs there obviously where

[2:06:03] Voice 6: are you sorry I'm on 2.3 on

[2:06:04] Voice 6: page 26 at the bottom

[2:06:06] Voice 9: part

[2:06:07] Voice 6: two yeah goal subsection Gambier planning area first bullet is amended by

[2:06:12] Voice 6: removing the words except for because we're gonna that's standard because we're going to include

[2:06:17] Voice 6: cotton right

[2:06:17] Voice 9: um it's yeah well that becomes 2.3 but in the original version sorry I'm kind of

[2:06:32] Voice 9: jumping around with

[2:06:34] Voice 9: the old version of your version here but um i guess um like one one of

[2:06:43] Voice 9: the amendments staff was saying is um where the context section was going to be put in yeah

[2:06:52] Voice 6: and

[2:06:53] Voice 9: i see what you've got there is immediately following and you know you've caught the

[2:06:57] Voice 9: typo in 2.4 okay so

[2:07:00] Voice 9: anyhow then we get into the rest of it which is the historical cultural

[2:07:02] Voice 9: cultural context of the answer.

[2:07:04] Voice 9: I don't have anything to add to that.

[2:07:09] Voice 9: And the point that Trustee Stamford's been trying to make

[2:07:14] Voice 9: about this larger vision,

[2:07:16] Voice 9: I think is very well established with this language

[2:07:19] Voice 9: that she had proposed, especially the last paragraph,

[2:07:22] Voice 8: which

[2:07:23] Voice 9: is, follows on, if you go back to the edits I had,

[2:07:28] Voice 9: it follows on the, yeah, I agree.

[2:07:34] Voice 9: You know, I've got some quibbles about the wording about it, just for things like that.

[2:07:39] Voice 9: But I mean, apart from that, the principle, the idea of it, like, I don't think we should

[2:07:43] Voice 9: say marine waters, because that's kind of redundant, that kind of thing.

[2:07:50] Voice 9: So

[2:07:50] Voice 6: is it under the Indigenous Acknowledgement and Reconciliation then?

[2:07:54] Voice 9: Well, it's when you move some things around, and you started talking about patterns, right?

[2:07:59] Voice 9: And that's when my first edit was, well, if we can go to the, for the purposes of going

[2:08:05] Voice 9: at going through your sequence here.

[2:08:07] Voice 9: Reconciliations of planning framework.

[2:08:09] Voice 8: Oh, okay.

[2:08:10] Voice 8: You

[2:08:10] Voice 9: can just follow your sequence here.

[2:08:11] Voice 8: Okay.

[2:08:13] Voice 9: Include building respect for collaborative

[2:08:14] Voice 9: government-to-government relationship.

[2:08:16] Voice 9: Agree.

[2:08:22] Voice 9: The recognizing indigenous rights and interests

[2:08:25] Voice 9: in lands and waters.

[2:08:26] Voice 9: And again, I know I'm gonna try to be patient with this

[2:08:28] Voice 9: because it's coming from a kind of a legalistic thing.

[2:08:33] Voice 9: I mean, the province can recognize the rights.

[2:08:35] Voice 9: The feds can recognize them.

[2:08:37] Voice 9: them, we can acknowledge their claims. We receive the finding of what a right is. It's

[2:08:46] Voice 9: not for us to, we don't have a place in that conversation. That's a conversation between

[2:08:53] Voice 9: the First Nation and the Crown. And so that's why for me, I would want to see that change

[2:08:58] Voice 9: to acknowledging Indigenous claims to rights and interests in the lands and waters, or

[2:09:03] Voice 9: or acknowledging indigenous claims to rights and interests

[2:09:08] Voice 5: and

[2:09:09] Voice 9: title.

[2:09:12] Voice 9: I mean, you could work that in there.

[2:09:15] Voice 6: Well, if it isn't, so this is the language I took.

[2:09:19] Voice 6: This is the same as the staff.

[2:09:21] Voice 6: Yeah, this is the staff language, this one.

[2:09:23] Voice 9: Yes, that's right.

[2:09:24] Voice 9: So

[2:09:24] Voice 6: if rights isn't in there now

[2:09:27] Voice 6: and you don't wanna see rights.

[2:09:30] Voice 9: Or title

[2:09:31] Voice 6: isn't in there now

[2:09:32] Voice 6: and you're not comfortable using the word title,

[2:09:34] Voice 6: then well

[2:09:36] Voice 9: so except what

[2:09:39] Voice 9: we can't do is use a word recognize I believe okay so

[2:09:43] Voice 6: that's our issue yeah I

[2:09:44] Voice 9: would like to say acknowledging indigenous claims to

[2:09:47] Voice 9: rights interests and title to lands and waters because we're acknowledging the

[2:09:54] Voice 9: claims we're acknowledging that there's a serious thing coming from the First

[2:09:57] Voice 9: Nation we're not voicing an opinion about what the outcome is

[2:10:03] Voice 6: no

[2:10:05] Voice 9: but I don't

[2:10:05] Voice 9: I don't think we're entitled to voice an opinion.

[2:10:07] Voice 6: I feel like we're splitting,

[2:10:08] Voice 6: like it's so far into the legal weeds here.

[2:10:12] Voice 6: I don't even know how to respond.

[2:10:14] Trustee Patrick: Well, I guess to look to staff,

[2:10:16] Trustee Patrick: I mean, is there a legal review

[2:10:19] Trustee Patrick: of the OCP after first reading?

[2:10:27] Voice 12: If a local trust committee wishes to use its project funds

[2:10:29] Voice 12: for the legal review,

[2:10:31] Voice 12: that's what you would direct staff to do.

[2:10:34] Voice 9: I would certainly argue in favor of that

[2:10:38] Voice 9: time well

[2:10:39] Voice 6: then i would rather not do the legal wrangling now yeah

[2:10:44] Trustee Patrick: that's what i said i think

[2:10:46] Trustee Patrick: if if you we're just not lawyers here yeah well one

[2:10:50] Trustee Patrick: is but the other two

[2:10:51] Voice 6: of us are not

[2:10:52] Voice 6: yeah we're not sitting here as lawyers and that's the part i'm having trouble yeah okay

[2:10:56] Voice 9: can you live with replacing the word recognizing with acknowledging you

[2:11:04] Voice 6: could try it um but one

[2:11:06] Voice 6: of the things i want to add is recognizing indigenous rights and interests that when i

[2:11:11] Voice 6: think of rights and title it's capital r capital t for title and it doesn't make a difference that

[2:11:19] Voice 6: it's lowercase um it's much more generic well

[2:11:25] Voice 14: again if you were to have a legal

[2:11:26] Trustee Patrick: review of the

[2:11:28] Trustee Patrick: language that would be captured if that is the appropriate i don't think capital

[2:11:34] Voice 9: makes much of

[2:11:35] Voice 9: a difference it looks a little funny when it's not a fun term i mean it's not it's not how you

[2:11:41] Voice 9: do statutory gravity but so but but but back

[2:11:45] Voice 5: to the issue

[2:11:46] Voice 9: back to the b issue okay i mean

[2:11:48] Voice 5: i'm

[2:11:48] Voice 9: serious about this which is i really don't think it's open to us to say something like we

[2:11:53] Voice 9: recognize these rights it's not for us it's like we can acknowledge the claim that's as far that

[2:12:00] Voice 9: and i i i'm pretty firm on that that's as far as we can go again it's for the crown to sort of sort

[2:12:06] Voice 9: this stuff up not us and i don't believe the ocp should be a document for political advocacy

[2:12:14] Voice 14: well i don't think sure that's but

[2:12:17] Voice 9: that's what we risk getting into when we when we make blanket

[2:12:20] Voice 9: claims that we're recognizing but

[2:12:23] Voice 6: we're doing advocacy all the way through our ocp

[2:12:27] Voice 6: political advocacy is part of our vision we're advocating not to have industrial level logging

[2:12:34] Voice 6: it's in there right now and it

[2:12:37] Voice 6: worked you know

[2:12:40] Voice 6: so i mean that there's i don't know there's a

[2:12:44] Voice 9: difference that's all i'm going to say about that you could spend hours talking well

[2:12:48] Trustee Patrick: again i think

[2:12:49] Trustee Patrick: we should just we can come back and say you know discuss the legal review piece so could we

[2:12:55] Trustee Patrick: afterwards

[2:12:55] Voice 6: um so how do we want to record this as terms of individual motions saying um line b of

[2:13:04] Voice 6: of reconciliation as a planning framework.

[2:13:08] Voice 6: We're recognizing and put in acknowledging.

[2:13:13] Trustee Patrick: Is

[2:13:13] Voice 6: that how we want to do this process live?

[2:13:15] Trustee Patrick: Like I said, I'd look to

[2:13:17] Voice 6: them all together.

[2:13:18] Trustee Patrick: I'm going

[2:13:19] Voice 6: to look to the planner

[2:13:20] Trustee Patrick: for how you'd like to do it.

[2:13:24] Voice 12: Line by line is great for the minutes and for staff.

[2:13:27] Voice 12: If there's not an enormous amount of amendments,

[2:13:30] Voice 12: if that's a good use of time,

[2:13:32] Voice 12: I don't understand what the full scope

[2:13:34] Voice 12: of amendments might be today

[2:13:35] Voice 12: that you're considering so if you're looking at aligning with trustee stamford's amendments

[2:13:43] Voice 12: it might be easier to amend the draft as per trustee stamford's attachment one

[2:13:50] Voice 12: and then make any subsequent resolutions about any minor changes to that again staff weren't

[2:14:00] Voice 12: recommending a legal review because we didn't feel it was necessary if you'd like to use your

[2:14:04] Voice 12: project funds to do that using trustee stanford's amendments and waiting for the wordsmithing any

[2:14:12] Voice 12: further wordsmithing to be based on a legal review that also might be a more efficient use

[2:14:19] Voice 12: of your time

[2:14:20] Voice 12: i'm just cognizant of the fact that you may not be at a place today where you can

[2:14:29] Voice 12: uh give very specific direction to prepare this bylaw for first reading in july that's the sense

[2:14:35] Voice 12: that i'm getting that there's an appetite to it we're going

[2:14:39] Trustee Patrick: to try we're going to try

[2:14:43] Trustee Patrick: let's hope um i i agree i think the wordsmithing i think we can if we're

[2:14:48] Trustee Patrick: going to spend a long time discussing that let's just park that wordsmithing issue um

[2:14:56] Trustee Patrick: They're chasing

[2:14:57] Trustee Patrick: our audience away.

[2:14:58] Voice 6: Yeah,

[2:14:58] Trustee Patrick: they're like, acknowledge, recognize.

[2:15:02] Trustee Patrick: Acknowledge I'm leaving.

[2:15:03] Trustee Patrick: Thank you for coming today.

[2:15:08] Trustee Patrick: Yeah,

[2:15:11] Voice 6: I am concerned about time, not just for today,

[2:15:14] Voice 6: but also time left in this term.

[2:15:17] Voice 6: And I'm just not willing to let this sit back.

[2:15:21] Trustee Patrick: I need to

[2:15:22] Trustee Patrick: see something happen.

[2:15:23] Trustee Patrick: Nothing.

[2:15:24] Trustee Patrick: All right, well, let's keep,

[2:15:27] Trustee Patrick: is this the first line in Trustee Stamford's changes

[2:15:32] Trustee Patrick: that we have a difference of opinion?

[2:15:35] Trustee Patrick: I think that's one way to

[2:15:37] Voice 9: look at it.

[2:15:37] Trustee Patrick: But we're talking

[2:15:38] Trustee Patrick: about the difference

[2:15:39] Trustee Patrick: between specific words.

[2:15:41] Trustee Patrick: Correct,

[2:15:41] Voice 9: so I think we can, correct.

[2:15:43] Voice 9: So

[2:15:43] Trustee Patrick: let's park right now the language.

[2:15:48] Voice 9: Well, actually it isn't the first point

[2:15:51] Voice 9: point of disagreement.

[2:15:53] Voice 9: Okay.

[2:15:55] Voice 9: Was there?

[2:15:56] Voice 9: Well, first of all, you know, we could adopt

[2:16:00] Voice 9: as the planners have been suggested,

[2:16:03] Voice 9: the changes that trustee Sanford suggested,

[2:16:08] Voice 9: and then we could sort of just start editing those.

[2:16:11] Voice 9: But if we do that, I think we have to go back to the start

[2:16:13] Voice 9: because you know, we have the,

[2:16:17] Voice 9: my point about deleting the words Gambier

[2:16:19] Voice 9: for a sentence, replacing them with Gambier, you know.

[2:16:23] Voice 9: i

[2:16:23] Voice 6: think it's in the recommendations isn't it

[2:16:25] Voice 9: uh actually

[2:16:28] Voice 6: we all agreed on that that wasn't

[2:16:30] Voice 6: ever an issue uh

[2:16:33] Voice 9: but as you pointed out at 2.1 i'm proposing the reverse i mean i

[2:16:38] Voice 6: think that um

[2:16:43] Voice 6: so there's the phone recommendation will provide a ltc a1 update ocp which which

[2:16:49] Voice 6: can be your island references throughout

[2:16:53] Voice 9: i'm going to suggest this that we adopt

[2:16:56] Voice 9: trustee stanford's document and then a subsequent resolution will compendiously deal with various

[2:17:04] Voice 9: edits right like and we'll start at the beginning with this and i i don't think um you know it's

[2:17:14] Voice 9: going to be pretty tedious for us to have a resolution as we do the edits by the way one

[2:17:17] Voice 9: by one yeah i

[2:17:19] Voice 9: i would rather just reach agreement staff takes a note that's where we want to go

[2:17:23] Voice 9: they work it into the resolution later after we pass it you know that kind of thing

[2:17:28] Voice 6: well so how

[2:17:29] Voice 6: How about we, can

[2:17:31] Voice 9: I

[2:17:38] Voice 6: try a motion?

[2:17:39] Voice 6: Go for it.

[2:17:41] Voice 6: I move that the Gamera and local trust committee

[2:17:48] Voice 6: move the recommended wording as outlined in the appendix.

[2:17:59] Voice 6: Attachment one?

[2:18:00] Voice 6: Attachment one per Trustee Stamford's framework.

[2:18:06] Voice 6: framework or

[2:18:08] Trustee Patrick: edits for edits yeah

[2:18:10] Voice 9: I second that motion let's

[2:18:14] Trustee Patrick: let's give Lisa a moment Lisa did

[2:18:18] Trustee Patrick: you get that motion I

[2:18:22] Voice 13: do and I'll read it back um I might need planner zupanek's advice at this point

[2:18:29] Voice 13: it says that the Gambier Island local trust committee move the recommended wording as

[2:18:34] Voice 13: as outlined in attachment one per Trustee Stamford's edits.

[2:18:41] Voice 12: And I suggest that the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee

[2:18:44] Voice 12: amend draft bylaw number 163 as per attachment number one

[2:18:49] Voice 12: in the staff report dated May 26th, 2026.

[2:18:53] Voice 6: Much better.

[2:18:54] Voice 9: That's exactly what Trustee Stamford said.

[2:18:56] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[2:18:59] Trustee Patrick: So let's give Lisa a moment.

[2:19:04] Voice 13: I do have that Chair Patrick.

[2:19:06] Trustee Patrick: All right, if you could just read that back and then.

[2:19:08] Trustee Patrick: uh

[2:19:08] Voice 1: yeah i think we got it

[2:19:09] Trustee Patrick: i think we got it all right is that uh you're seconding that okay

[2:19:13] Trustee Patrick: the second by trustee bernardo any discussion call the vote all those in favor that carries

[2:19:21] Trustee Patrick: now i

[2:19:22] Voice 9: would do some heavy lifting here

[2:19:24] Voice 6: so and so our next is we're gonna put a series

[2:19:28] Voice 6: of edits together under one motion is that correct yes

[2:19:33] Voice 9: okay

[2:19:34] Trustee Patrick: so

[2:19:36] Voice 6: the first one is that

[2:19:43] Voice 6: uh the come before gambling i

[2:19:47] Voice 9: can read that okay

[2:19:48] Voice 6: and

[2:19:49] Voice 9: uh so

[2:19:50] Trustee Patrick: lisa we're just going to capture a whole

[2:19:52] Trustee Patrick: bunch of edits and then put it into one motion and

[2:19:55] Voice 9: um it's going to take some finessing i guess

[2:19:59] Voice 9: 2.1 part 2 community goals of section purpose of the official community plan paragraph 1 is

[2:20:06] Voice 9: amended by deleting the words gambier island in the first sentence and replacing with

[2:20:12] Voice 9: i'm afraid i can't pronounce it but the squamish nation word bracket gambler island in black

[2:20:20] Voice 6: but that's supposed to go throughout the whole document correct

[2:20:23] Voice 9: so

[2:20:25] Voice 6: it's not just that one that's

[2:20:28] Voice 6: not just part two can you go it's the whole document

[2:20:30] Voice 9: yes but as we go through the different

[2:20:32] Voice 9: sections we can just change it then or should we just i think we should just say make reference

[2:20:36] Trustee Patrick: throughout throughout the

[2:20:37] Trustee Patrick: entire document yes okay

[2:20:39] Voice 9: and lisa

[2:20:43] Trustee Patrick: did you capture

[2:20:43] Voice 13: what we were referring to

[2:20:46] Voice 13: through the chair trustee bernardo could you just repeat you wanted the first nations

[2:20:52] Voice 13: place name before or after gambier island it's

[2:20:56] Voice 9: before gambier island

[2:20:57] Voice 13: before thank you and

[2:20:59] Voice 9: and

[2:21:01] Trustee Patrick: then changed made throughout the document that's just the first edit right

[2:21:07] Voice 9: okay now

[2:21:09] Voice 9: let's see what

[2:21:10] Voice 9: we have here um 2.3 let's see into the following sections yes that all works um okay now we get

[2:21:25] Voice 9: into the the harder part because again this is trying people's patience but when we get to the

[2:21:36] Voice 14: section

[2:21:36] Voice 9: we're we're at the second the last paragraph of the language that trustee stanford

[2:21:44] Voice 9: had rearranged and

[2:21:46] Trustee Patrick: just a second while we get on the same page what page are you

[2:21:50] Voice 9: on page 28

[2:21:51] Trustee Patrick: of the

[2:21:52] Trustee Patrick: agenda package where it says patterns of colonial settlement yeah okay

[2:21:57] Voice 9: say reserve allocation etc

[2:21:59] Voice 9: um have recurred occurred uh without recognition edition sites and titles um well my preference

[2:22:07] Voice 9: would be uh the language say protected area designation have occurred without recognition

[2:22:14] Voice 9: without recognition of the continuing rights and interests

[2:22:16] Voice 9: of indigenous nations.

[2:22:21] Voice 9: And the phrase, these patterns continue

[2:22:26] Voice 9: to shape land ownership.

[2:22:28] Voice 9: I don't think that, I actually think that's redundant.

[2:22:30] Voice 9: I think the first sentence covers it.

[2:22:34] Voice 9: So you'll see what I'm doing there is I'm taking

[2:22:37] Voice 9: out the word title.

[2:22:38] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, I can.

[2:22:39] Trustee Patrick: Could we have, I mean, this could be a separate motion,

[2:22:44] Trustee Patrick: not an edit motion, but to request the legal review

[2:22:48] Trustee Patrick: for those type of words, if that's, yeah.

[2:22:56] Trustee Patrick: Well,

[2:22:56] Voice 9: look, we are limited in time here

[2:22:59] Voice 9: and I do have this concern,

[2:23:02] Voice 9: but we're not gonna reach a resolution of it.

[2:23:05] Voice 9: Trustee Sanford has her particular view of it.

[2:23:07] Voice 9: I've got mine.

[2:23:08] Voice 9: I have an anxiety about it to tell you the truth.

[2:23:16] Voice 16: So

[2:23:16] Voice 9: I'm gonna suggest that we could,

[2:23:18] Voice 9: um well i actually do think it gets you know if we put in the word continuing in there

[2:23:26] Voice 9: of without recognition of continuing indigenous whatever we say there but uh i would you know we

[2:23:35] Voice 9: can go with using the word like leaving the word title in there but if we do that i am going to

[2:23:41] Voice 9: want us to spend some of the money okay and

[2:23:43] Voice 9: have that i i want to hear from legal counsel yeah no

[2:23:47] Voice 9: What is the effect of saying title?

[2:23:50] Voice 9: And when that question gets asked,

[2:23:52] Voice 9: I'd like to be consulted about it

[2:23:53] Voice 9: because it's not just a blanket question.

[2:23:55] Voice 9: I have an

[2:23:56] Voice 9: anxiety that needs to be addressed.

[2:23:58] Trustee Patrick: No, I understand.

[2:23:59] Trustee Patrick: And I think it's prudent, you know,

[2:24:01] Trustee Patrick: a prudent thing today to wording words are important.

[2:24:05] Trustee Patrick: And, and I, you know,

[2:24:07] Trustee Patrick: from when you started the project of where we are today,

[2:24:10] Trustee Patrick: couldn't have imagined that this would be the environment

[2:24:13] Trustee Patrick: that we're in today.

[2:24:14] Trustee Patrick: So I think it's okay that we capture a separate motion.

[2:24:18] Trustee Patrick: We

[2:24:19] Voice 2: can do that at the end.

[2:24:20] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, let's do a separate motion at the end

[2:24:21] Trustee Patrick: to talk about the legal review.

[2:24:23] Voice 9: And then

[2:24:23] Trustee Patrick: that could come back and-

[2:24:24] Trustee Patrick: So

[2:24:25] Voice 9: for this one, I would like to say,

[2:24:27] Voice 9: without recognition, continuing Indigenous title and rights.

[2:24:32] Trustee Patrick: But that might not be the issue.

[2:24:34] Voice 9: No, I know it's not going to be the issue,

[2:24:35] Voice 9: but I actually think-

[2:24:38] Voice 6: No, I disagree that the first sentence

[2:24:41] Voice 6: and the second sentence are redundant.

[2:24:43] Voice 6: we have to establish the historic pattern and the second sentence acknowledges that

[2:24:49] Voice 6: this is still an issue

[2:24:51] Voice 8: chair

[2:24:52] Voice 12: patrick yes as it looks like the local trust committee is leaning

[2:24:57] Voice 12: towards uh doing a legal review of the draft as amended by attachment one i strongly recommend

[2:25:04] Voice 12: that any further discussion about amendments to the draft wait until that legal review is

[2:25:09] Voice 12: is finalized because there could be substantial information

[2:25:13] Voice 12: that the LTC needs to consider for tweaks and improvements

[2:25:16] Voice 12: to the bylaw after that legal review

[2:25:19] Voice 12: that could better use your time and efforts

[2:25:24] Voice 12: than doing it prior to the legal review at this stage.

[2:25:27] Voice 12: If the LTC is comfortable voting on a legal review

[2:25:31] Voice 12: based on these amendments,

[2:25:33] Voice 12: that would be sufficient direction for staff.

[2:25:36] Voice 12: We could try to bring that back to you

[2:25:38] Voice 12: for your July meeting.

[2:25:39] Voice 12: i'm not sure if we would have that completed by then in which case we'll do the best we can

[2:25:49] Voice 6: i'm okay with the idea of it but i do want to make sure that trustee bernardo's specific concerns

[2:25:57] Voice 6: are acknowledged somewhere in order to know that they at least could be looked at

[2:26:05] Voice 6: does that i'm

[2:26:07] Voice 9: getting a little confused here where i'm at is that um

[2:26:11] Voice 9: I appreciate the Planner Zupanek's comment with respect to the whole vexing title question.

[2:26:17] Voice 6: As

[2:26:17] Voice 9: to the overarching thing.

[2:26:21] Voice 6: But I haven't still seen this overarching.

[2:26:24] Voice 6: I don't think it's in here.

[2:26:28] Voice 9: Well, it's in there in how the language is set up in terms of when we get to the bits about the reconciliation as a planning framework.

[2:26:38] Trustee Patrick: But it's

[2:26:38] Voice 9: not above it.

[2:26:39] Voice 9: I mean,

[2:26:39] Trustee Patrick: that this describes how the planning framework

[2:26:43] Trustee Patrick: is being brought forward.

[2:26:46] Trustee Patrick: Well, okay.

[2:26:50] Trustee Patrick: So that

[2:26:50] Voice 9: recommendation, A2,

[2:26:53] Voice 9: informs the reconciliation of the planning framework.

[2:26:56] Trustee Patrick: But A2 is not part of the document.

[2:26:59] Voice 9: Yes.

[2:27:01] Voice 9: Sorry,

[2:27:01] Voice 12: can I jump in here?

[2:27:03] Voice 12: This isn't a recommendation that came from Squamish Nation.

[2:27:09] Voice 12: you're disputing the validity of their recommendation to you uh

[2:27:16] Voice 9: with respect i'm

[2:27:18] Voice 9: not disputing the validity of the recommendation they have their interests and they're entitled

[2:27:22] Voice 9: to pursue them in whatever way they see fit

[2:27:24] Voice 12: that's right this is a recommendation to the

[2:27:26] Voice 12: local trust committee so now i've interpreted that recommendation through the planning lens

[2:27:31] Voice 12: and provided you with a draft that does the best possible way to address that recommendation

[2:27:36] Voice 12: Because I understand that's what you wanted to do through your project charter is to address the nation's recommendation, which explicitly says amend your OCP with specific commitments to reconciliation as overarching framework for all policy guidance.

[2:27:51] Voice 12: That's their language. So I don't think it's appropriate for you to be discussing their recommendation unless you see language that I've drafted that is disconcerting to you.

[2:28:03] Voice 12: This is a recommendation from the nation to you.

[2:28:06] Voice 8: Those

[2:28:06] Voice 12: words are not in the OCP bylaw

[2:28:09] Voice 8: that I'm presenting to you today.

[2:28:14] Voice 12: So it doesn't

[2:28:15] Voice 12: feel constructive to be taking the Squamish Nation recommendation language

[2:28:20] Voice 12: when that's not reflected in the bylaw.

[2:28:22] Voice 12: I've done the best I can to present you with a bylaw that takes that recommendation

[2:28:26] Voice 12: and actually gives you OCP language that tries very hard to show them

[2:28:31] Voice 12: that we are trying to incorporate a four into the this very beginning cursory

[2:28:40] Voice 12: draft to be honest that this is this is not hitting the mark at all but we've

[2:28:45] Voice 12: done the best we can with the time that we've gotten the resources that we've

[2:28:48] Voice 12: got are

[2:28:53] Voice 9: we done yeah so yeah

[2:28:55] Voice 9: respond all

[2:28:57] Voice 14: right I

[2:28:58] Voice 9: appreciate that and I'm not

[2:29:01] Voice 9: I'm not saying that it's our place to edit the submissions of Squamish Nation.

[2:29:07] Voice 9: What I am saying is it's up to us to adopt the parts of it that we think are appropriate

[2:29:14] Voice 9: and work and that are feasible going forward, but we can't simply be guided by A2 and simply

[2:29:21] Voice 9: say, okay, we're going to do that.

[2:29:23] Voice 9: We will make it the overarching principle.

[2:29:25] Voice 9: MS EASTMAN.

[2:29:25] Voice 6: I don't see it anywhere in this document.

[2:29:27] Voice 6: It

[2:29:27] Voice 9: doesn't say that.

[2:29:28] Voice 9: COMMISSIONER BENNETT.

[2:29:28] Voice 9: Could you please bear with me and not interrupt?

[2:29:31] Voice 9: interrupt. The point of that, what we're hearing from Planner Zupanek, is that she was using

[2:29:38] Voice 9: this as her guidance, and she was undertaking the draft of this by taking A2 as an operating

[2:29:46] Voice 9: principle in how she drafted this language. And I'm saying it's not appropriate to go

[2:29:52] Voice 9: that far. And may I please finish?

[2:29:56] Voice 9: It

[2:29:56] Voice 12: was A4, just for clarification purposes.

[2:29:58] Voice 12: purposes.

[2:30:01] Voice 9: Is it A2 or A4?

[2:30:03] Voice 12: It's A4 and the LTC endorsed these recommendations as the guiding principles for staff to draft the by-law.

[2:30:11] Voice 9: Okay, but I don't think we could get into a very long discussion with the circumstances about how these materials come before us, not a

[2:30:19] Voice 9: good idea to do it.

[2:30:20] Voice 9: If I could finish the thought, I think I just heard Planner Zupanek saying that she was using A4, and thank you for correcting me, as a guiding principle.

[2:30:31] Voice 9: principle and the point I've been trying to make is that's fine that Squamish Nation wants that

[2:30:36] Voice 9: to be a guiding principle I'm just saying we can't go as far as Squamish Nation wants and

[2:30:42] Voice 9: that manifests itself into the language of what we have here as reconciliation is a planning form

[2:30:48] Voice 9: framework and it goes back to the point I made about B about recognizing indigenous rights and

[2:30:55] Voice 9: interests and lands and borders we can't I don't believe we can say that

[2:30:58] Voice 14: trustee Stanford

[2:31:01] Voice 6: I didn't

[2:31:02] Voice 6: hear the same thing as you did i heard that planners of panics said taking that

[2:31:13] Voice 6: recommendation from squamish nation and putting it within the context of planning for gambier

[2:31:20] Voice 6: and the ocp right so

[2:31:23] Voice 6: it's not taken verbatim it's here's the other issues that our ocp is

[2:31:28] Voice 6: is part of and outlining underneath here's the specific places where we can access

[2:31:35] Voice 6: their interest and their recommendation under building respectful collaboratives number b

[2:31:41] Voice 6: recognizing or acknowledging c supporting the protection of cultural so she's laid it out based

[2:31:48] Voice 6: not just on their recommendation but on the gambier island ocp and the direction of planning

[2:31:57] Voice 6: planning in general for the island.

[2:32:00] Voice 6: So I'm not seeing the translation directly across.

[2:32:03] Voice 6: I'm seeing that there's been an accommodation

[2:32:07] Voice 6: based on our OCP and not just what the Squamish Nation

[2:32:14] Voice 6: recommended, because it's not in here.

[2:32:17] Voice 6: There's no

[2:32:17] Voice 6: overarching framework.

[2:32:19] Voice 6: It doesn't say it in there, nor am I reading it that way.

[2:32:22] Voice 6: It specifically outlines where

[2:32:25] Voice 9: that access is.

[2:32:26] Voice 9: planner zupanek say she interpreted yes

[2:32:29] Voice 1: the

[2:32:30] Voice 9: approach that we should take with this draft ocp

[2:32:34] Voice 9: following those four recommendations and the point i keep trying to make is by following the

[2:32:41] Voice 9: overarching thing and i agree it's not in there but that's how we get to those a b c and d points

[2:32:48] Voice 9: but

[2:32:48] Voice 6: is there anything wrong with those abc standards like what which

[2:32:52] Voice 9: um i know trustee

[2:32:55] Voice 9: samford because you've said it a number of times uh you're kind of not that comfortable with the

[2:33:00] Voice 9: legalisms but this is a legal process and

[2:33:03] Voice 6: my

[2:33:04] Voice 9: objection is to the i've already mentioned one

[2:33:07] Voice 9: at b recognizing indigenous rights and interests i don't think we can do that we could acknowledge

[2:33:12] Voice 9: claims i don't have a problem with a i don't have a problem with c i do have a problem with d you

[2:33:18] Voice 9: can't simply as a blanket statement say we're going to integrate indigenous knowledge and

[2:33:24] Voice 9: stewardship perspective into planning decision making process there will be really difficult

[2:33:29] Voice 6: for you to say this is the legal aspect and me to be able to respond with any kind of knowledge

[2:33:35] Voice 9: i want to be very careful here uh i'm coming from it from a particular perspective that's informed

[2:33:41] Voice 9: on my understanding i'm not an expert any of this stuff and please do not misunderstand me

[2:33:46] Voice 9: i'm not trying to sort of wield the legal authority club that's that's not something

[2:33:51] Voice 9: that's appropriate here and i'm not dressing myself up to have that type of like expert foot

[2:33:58] Voice 9: i don't have what you're hearing from me is a person who has some legal training who gets

[2:34:04] Voice 9: anxious when he sees these words and it's coming i could be wrong that the person and what i'm

[2:34:09] Voice 9: sharing with you is my perspective as a trustee full stop it just happens to be informed where

[2:34:14] Voice 9: i come from i'm not giving a legal argument i'm actually giving a political argument

[2:34:18] Voice 6: so as a

[2:34:19] Voice 6: of motion could

[2:34:20] Voice 9: you lay

[2:34:21] Voice 6: out specifically where you would like a legal um post focus to include

[2:34:30] Voice 6: specifically these points

[2:34:31] Voice 9: yes i think we could do that that might well be the most efficient

[2:34:34] Voice 9: thing to do but it's going to take me a few minutes to actually to come up with a specific

[2:34:39] Voice 9: motion okay

[2:34:40] Trustee Patrick: okay so that that would be fair so are there any other general comments that um

[2:34:48] Trustee Patrick: pertaining but need to be changed were there planners zupanek did you have some issues with

[2:34:56] Trustee Patrick: the language that was done go ahead so

[2:34:58] Voice 6: the only other question i have is when i put this together

[2:35:01] Voice 6: um i couldn't i didn't know where um separate sections would go because i don't see this all

[2:35:08] Voice 6: sitting at the very front of the document only because it would just it's too much

[2:35:16] Voice 6: that we would have a section with archaeological sites,

[2:35:20] Voice 6: a section of the OCP,

[2:35:21] Voice 6: and that that would be introduced as a separate section.

[2:35:27] Voice 6: Is that how I'm reading it?

[2:35:29] Voice 6: Is that how it would work?

[2:35:30] Voice 6: Rather than everything being laid out at the front of the document?

[2:35:33] Voice 6: Because again, I still think readability,

[2:35:37] Voice 6: it changes the flavor of the OCP.

[2:35:41] Voice 6: If all this is sort of front-ended

[2:35:44] Voice 6: and it would be more effective if this, again,

[2:35:48] Voice 6: was in a separate section that deals with archaeological sites.

[2:35:54] Voice 14: Honourable Zipanek?

[2:35:56] Voice 12: That's not the way that the draft is currently set up

[2:35:59] Voice 12: because this is a very minor amendment

[2:36:03] Voice 12: that was not intended to take the entire official community plan

[2:36:07] Voice 12: and try to make significant changes throughout.

[2:36:13] Voice 12: So if you would like to see the draft language

[2:36:16] Voice 12: embedded into the different sections somehow we could try to bring that draft

[2:36:20] Voice 12: back to you you know some suggested edits but I mean there's so many changes

[2:36:24] Voice 12: that we would need to potentially look at what we wish we had the ability to

[2:36:32] Voice 12: proceed with but

[2:36:32] Voice 6: for a follow-up is I mean I haven't looked specifically for

[2:36:39] Voice 6: the archaeological sites section is there one um and and could this be introduced just like as a as

[2:36:48] Voice 6: an introduction so is there an archaeology i haven't looked at it for a while if

[2:36:52] Voice 9: i may she's

[2:36:54] Trustee Patrick: shaking her head no one

[2:36:55] Voice 9: of the

[2:36:56] Voice 9: things with trustee stanford's edits that i thought we were going to

[2:37:01] Voice 9: get to is um she kept the reconciliation object reconciliation objective a bit but what fell away

[2:37:09] Voice 9: way with the reconciliation policies a bit right at the very end may have just been yeah it may

[2:37:14] Voice 9: have just fallen off when you're writing it yeah so

[2:37:16] Voice 9: I think we one of the things we need to do

[2:37:19] Voice 9: today is reincorporate that okay into what is now our working draft and it seems to me that that's

[2:37:27] Voice 9: what the reconciliation the reconciliation prop policies are addressing the things that you were

[2:37:34] Voice 9: are trying to do with your last two paragraphs i mean you're going into a lot more yeah language

[2:37:43] Voice 9: and history all that but i i thought the reconciliation policies you know i've got

[2:37:49] Voice 9: some tweets there but i don't think that they're um material i mean i don't have a problem with

[2:37:56] Voice 9: those policies

[2:37:57] Voice 6: so where are they on what page here well

[2:38:00] Voice 9: they're not in your thing they're in

[2:38:01] Voice 9: the original draft

[2:38:02] Voice 6: in the original draft we have the page page

[2:38:04] Trustee Patrick: 36 37 39 sorry 40.

[2:38:09] Voice 9: 39 that's the

[2:38:12] Trustee Patrick: original right

[2:38:13] Voice 9: so if you go down to right page 40 um right

[2:38:21] Voice 6: i can see it now and

[2:38:25] Voice 9: i have some

[2:38:26] Voice 9: questions about that one one of the edits i was thinking that might be helpful was that the local

[2:38:32] Voice 9: trust committee says right now should see a meaningful engagement with indigenous government

[2:38:35] Voice 9: of bodies that's fair enough

[2:38:36] Voice 9: um i was wondering if it adds anything to say indigenous government

[2:38:42] Voice 9: bodies with interests in um

[2:38:46] Voice 6: i'm sorry we're kind of bouncing around here so i just want to make

[2:38:50] Voice 6: sure that i'm so after what i had suggested the objectives then we look into policies

[2:39:01] Voice 6: reconciliation objectives and then policy that's what dropped off yes you're right

[2:39:07] Voice 6: okay and so you and so how do we process what you just said well

[2:39:12] Voice 9: i don't know if you agree

[2:39:13] Voice 9: or not but it seems to be the two sections that you added the language we could replace them with

[2:39:19] Voice 9: this and i think it covered it

[2:39:22] Voice 6: which language where

[2:39:23] Voice 9: well um if we go back to your language at

[2:39:27] Voice 9: at the 26th page, if we go back to page 29.

[2:39:39] Voice 9: Okay, I think I understand.

[2:39:41] Voice 9: You now go, I don't know how to add this in,

[2:39:43] Voice 9: but they should be separate sections.

[2:39:44] Voice 6: Yeah, they could actually fit within.

[2:39:48] Voice 6: I

[2:39:48] Voice 9: don't know.

[2:39:52] Voice 9: It seems to me, I prefer more sparse language,

[2:39:58] Voice 9: but it seems to me that the policies

[2:40:00] Voice 9: as originally drafted cover that.

[2:40:04] Trustee Patrick: Were you proposing changes to the policies

[2:40:06] Trustee Patrick: as they were originally drafted?

[2:40:09] Trustee Patrick: No, so yeah, that wasn't the intent, so.

[2:40:13] Voice 6: No, I just thought they would be better

[2:40:15] Voice 6: in introductory statements,

[2:40:18] Voice 6: rather than having everything front loaded

[2:40:20] Voice 6: at the front of the OCP.

[2:40:22] Trustee Patrick: So if they're going to be front loaded,

[2:40:24] Trustee Patrick: she's not proposing any changes to the policies.

[2:40:27] Trustee Patrick: So we're back to what

[2:40:28] Trustee Patrick: issues did you have

[2:40:30] Voice 9: with the policies as original i don't have any issues other than some wording changes but i

[2:40:36] Voice 9: that's where we're at right now is we've adopted trustee stanford yeah yeah

[2:40:39] Voice 9: the starting point is

[2:40:42] Voice 9: we need to move the reconciliation policies back into it

[2:40:44] Voice 6: okay right yeah

[2:40:46] Voice 6: i understand what you mean

[2:40:47] Voice 6: and

[2:40:47] Voice 9: um before we do that i thought we should just sort out the language that is in there

[2:40:53] Voice 9: and whether or not my suggestions have any traction or not okay

[2:40:57] Voice 6: and then we can deal with

[2:40:59] Voice 9: the other stuff and

[2:41:00] Voice 6: whether or not we even need them right

[2:41:02] Voice 9: and then i think that's where planner

[2:41:04] Voice 9: supina can be helpful if she can give her all right so that's

[2:41:08] Trustee Patrick: your changes on her opinion as

[2:41:10] Voice 9: to whether or not page

[2:41:12] Trustee Patrick: 35 is

[2:41:13] Voice 9: what yes

[2:41:15] Voice 9: you're

[2:41:16] Trustee Patrick: looking at so you're yes

[2:41:18] Voice 9: and the wording there

[2:41:20] Voice 9: is uh it just right now it just says sort of sort of seek early meaningful

[2:41:25] Voice 9: to engage with the government bodies there.

[2:41:27] Voice 9: Or should we be specific and say,

[2:41:29] Voice 9: with interest in Gambier Island?

[2:41:35] Trustee Patrick: You're muted, Planner Zubinick.

[2:41:40] Trustee Patrick: Do we, we don't need that, okay.

[2:41:45] Trustee Patrick: Well, if we're doing a legal review again,

[2:41:47] Trustee Patrick: that would be captured.

[2:41:48] Trustee Patrick: I mean,

[2:41:49] Trustee Patrick: that's one of the items that would be-

[2:41:51] Trustee Patrick: Oh, no, no, with respect, no.

[2:41:54] Trustee Patrick: Why not?

[2:41:55] Trustee Patrick: Because that's what a legal review would say,

[2:41:57] Trustee Patrick: then you're-

[2:41:59] Voice 9: it's for us to decide the scope of the instrument the lawyer will tell us what the effect of it is

[2:42:07] Voice 9: but without saying with interest in candor it could be any indigenous body indigenous

[2:42:15] Voice 9: but my question is am i really adding anything to this or am i just being overly picky

[2:42:24] go

[2:42:25] Voice 6: ahead i mean the the area that i see this as coming into attention is um just like with

[2:42:34] Voice 6: salt spring there are indigenous bodies that don't have a technical interest but they still

[2:42:40] Voice 6: have an interest but they're not defined in anything as saying being part of it do we

[2:42:46] Voice 6: completely ignore those people just because well they don't have a defined province

[2:42:51] Trustee Patrick: The province

[2:42:51] Trustee Patrick: tells you who you must engage with.

[2:42:54] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, so that's kind of

[2:42:55] Voice 6: outside of it.

[2:42:55] Voice 6: So I

[2:42:56] Voice 6: do think this is a bit...

[2:42:57] Trustee Patrick: Yeah.

[2:42:59] Trustee Patrick: I'm not

[2:42:59] Voice 9: going to die on this hill.

[2:43:01] Voice 9: No doubt I'll be killed on a different hill.

[2:43:05] Trustee Patrick: All right, so your next hill.

[2:43:07] Voice 9: I do think that this is actually...

[2:43:12] Voice 9: I think 2D needs to be more specific.

[2:43:15] Voice 9: Right now it says educational initiatives

[2:43:17] Voice 9: to support protection of archaeological reports

[2:43:19] Voice 9: on culturally significant areas.

[2:43:23] Voice 9: I would prefer it to read protection of areas, archaeological sites, and ecologies of cultural

[2:43:31] Voice 9: significance to those Indigenous nations with interests in Dandruff Island.

[2:43:38] Voice 9: I mean, that to me is much more targeted and specific, to be blunt, to the interests of

[2:43:43] Voice 9: Squamish Nation, you know, because I appreciate that there's other nations may have views

[2:43:50] Voice 9: about these things, but Squamish Nation is the one that has the most articulated claim

[2:43:55] Voice 9: to all these different things except

[2:43:57] Voice 6: there are very specific like musqueam will okay make

[2:44:02] Voice 6: recommendations sure

[2:44:04] Voice 9: so that doesn't exclude them doesn't exclude them

[2:44:06] Voice 6: yeah so like i wouldn't

[2:44:09] Voice 6: yeah as long as it doesn't specify just the explanation

[2:44:11] Voice 9: it doesn't but um the one thing

[2:44:14] Voice 9: it now the language as originally drafted didn't address it just said archaeological ecological

[2:44:22] Voice 9: and culturally significant areas.

[2:44:23] Voice 9: It didn't anchor the cultural significance

[2:44:26] Voice 9: and archeological significance to indigenous nations.

[2:44:28] Voice 9: That's the main point.

[2:44:30] Trustee Patrick: But it just, I mean, it's a very broad statement.

[2:44:34] Trustee Patrick: LTC should consider regulatory tools where appropriate

[2:44:39] Trustee Patrick: and consistent with including educational initiatives

[2:44:43] Trustee Patrick: to support protection of.

[2:44:45] Trustee Patrick: So it's already quite general.

[2:44:48] Trustee Patrick: And

[2:44:48] Voice 6: would we by definition exclude other forms

[2:44:51] Voice 6: forms of cultural work

[2:44:55] Voice 9: well I thought part of this exercise you know as I think I've been lectured a

[2:45:00] Voice 9: number of times is to signal the Squamish nation that we're serious about respecting their interests

[2:45:06] Voice 9: and that's why I thought look again I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go to the wall on this thing but

[2:45:14] Voice 9: if you don't think it's worthwhile to make specific reference in digital nations so be it

[2:45:19] Voice 9: well

[2:45:20] Voice 6: it's not that as partly I I keep I feel like we're bouncing around a bit I'm not sure where we

[2:45:24] Voice 6: are again so right now

[2:45:26] Voice 6: we're looking at policy two policies and now i go back into the document

[2:45:33] Voice 6: it's what what page well

[2:45:35] Trustee Patrick: it's page 35 is his change that he's looking

[2:45:38] Trustee Patrick: out at so it's oh it's those ones again okay we haven't left the policies

[2:45:43] Voice 9: i thought we could tweak

[2:45:45] Voice 9: those if they require it and then move them back in page 35 here okay okay

[2:45:50] Voice 6: i was looking at the

[2:45:52] Voice 6: right one items

[2:45:52] Voice 9: d there too oh i see

[2:45:54] Voice 6: okay so it definitely is reconcilable all right

[2:45:59] Voice 9: if you want

[2:46:00] Voice 9: to leave it general but it's

[2:46:02] Trustee Patrick: it's it's the os it should be general in nature well there's an

[2:46:09] Voice 9: argument in favor of that i see it but um is

[2:46:12] Trustee Patrick: it just saying consider i

[2:46:17] Voice 9: just thought it might be

[2:46:21] Voice 9: helpful to have the reference indigest nation but apparently i'm wrong it's

[2:46:25] Voice 6: not iran i'm just really

[2:46:26] Voice 6: really trying to get this through so we can come back.

[2:46:33] Voice 9: All right, I move.

[2:46:35] Trustee Patrick: But we're just, we have a list of edits at this point

[2:46:38] Trustee Patrick: that you want to do the second one on the legal issues?

[2:46:41] Trustee Patrick: No, let's just, you want to make.

[2:46:43] Voice 9: We can't do the legal issue thing

[2:46:45] Voice 9: until we actually

[2:46:45] Trustee Patrick: have the document

[2:46:46] Voice 9: that goes there.

[2:46:47] Voice 9: I'm trying to build the thing.

[2:46:49] Voice 9: All right, I move that the section entitled

[2:46:54] Voice 9: entitled Reconciliation Policies,

[2:46:57] Voice 9: as originally drafted by staff,

[2:47:02] Voice 9: be inserted

[2:47:05] Voice 8: into

[2:47:09] Voice 9: the draft OCP text

[2:47:15] Voice 9: immediately after the section

[2:47:17] Voice 9: entitled Reconciliation Objectives.

[2:47:20] Trustee Patrick: Let me look this up.

[2:47:22] Trustee Patrick: Do we need to put that back in

[2:47:24] Trustee Patrick: if we edited the document

[2:47:26] Trustee Patrick: with Trustee Stamford's changes,

[2:47:30] Trustee Patrick: she hadn't changed this reconciliation policy.

[2:47:33] Trustee Patrick: Do we need a resolution to put it back

[2:47:35] Trustee Patrick: into the draft bylaw?

[2:47:38] Trustee Patrick: You still want to have that in there, okay.

[2:47:40] Voice 12: Okay, the intent is that these should be

[2:47:42] Voice 12: explicitly included, but yes, they need to be included.

[2:47:45] Trustee Patrick: Okay,

[2:47:45] Voice 8: Lisa,

[2:47:47] Trustee Patrick: I don't know if you got a resolution,

[2:47:49] Trustee Patrick: heard that or?

[2:47:53] Voice 13: Chair Patrick, what I have so far is that

[2:47:56] Voice 13: the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee

[2:47:58] Voice 13: request staff include reconciliation policies as originally drafted by staff be inserted into

[2:48:06] Voice 13: the draft ocp text immediately after the section titled reconciliation objectives that sound good

[2:48:15] Trustee Patrick: to you all right is there a second seconded by trustee stamford any discussion call the vote

[2:48:22] Trustee Patrick: all those in favor that carries you need some time to work on a legal opinion one

[2:48:35] Voice 9: most i need

[2:48:36] Voice 9: some time to work on that motion and uh i believe trustee sanford has to figure out what she wants

[2:48:40] Voice 9: to do with those last bits that she inserted there whether she wants to leave them in there or not

[2:48:47] Trustee Patrick: trustee stamford last bits i'm

[2:48:55] Voice 6: looking um i i mean i just these are these are part of what was

[2:49:05] Voice 6: already in the recommendations from staff all i wanted to do was not have them at the front

[2:49:13] Voice 6: yeah and I was hoping to see them set within the sections that deal with with

[2:49:23] Voice 6: these issues but

[2:49:25] Trustee Patrick: if they can't are you okay with it ending up at the front yes

[2:49:30] Trustee Patrick: so I guess to look at staff the way trustee Stanford has left it open would

[2:49:39] Trustee Patrick: you interpret and just come back with leaving it at the front if you are

[2:49:42] Trustee Patrick: unable to put it somewhere else in the document yeah

[2:49:47] Voice 12: the documents not

[2:49:48] Voice 12: not structured well to accommodate this without creating new sections which when and if the bylaw

[2:49:55] Voice 12: does get updated more substantially that would be the time to do that so i would recommend it

[2:50:01] Voice 12: just stays at the beginning this is less than

[2:50:04] Voice 12: two pages of text but

[2:50:06] Trustee Patrick: i'm saying do you need

[2:50:09] Trustee Patrick: because trustee stanford's edits kind of left it open we don't need to make another resolution

[2:50:14] Trustee Patrick: in that regard you would just bring it back as

[2:50:18] Voice 6: long as they have titles yeah and demonstrate

[2:50:20] Voice 6: their separate sections so

[2:50:22] Voice 12: yes we'll draft the bio and format it so that it works and it can

[2:50:26] Voice 12: just be inserted in the beginning of the document as the original was intended to be okay

[2:50:33] Trustee Patrick: so we

[2:50:36] Trustee Patrick: We don't need any resolution on that.

[2:50:44] Voice 9: How are you doing?

[2:50:46] Voice 9: I'm going to need 10 or 15 minutes here.

[2:50:48] Voice 9: Yeah.

[2:50:48] Voice 9: Okay.

[2:50:49] Voice 6: Can we, I'm just trying to think,

[2:50:52] Voice 6: is there some fairly straightforward stuff

[2:50:55] Voice 6: we can move on to from

[2:50:56] Trustee Patrick: this?

[2:50:57] Trustee Patrick: So is that the only outstanding item is now the motion

[2:51:01] Trustee Patrick: on the legal review?

[2:51:02] Trustee Patrick: Yeah.

[2:51:02] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[2:51:04] Trustee Patrick: Trustee Bernardo is working on drafting something.

[2:51:07] Trustee Patrick: But

[2:51:07] Voice 6: I'm getting really concerned about timing.

[2:51:09] Voice 6: me yes

[2:51:09] Trustee Patrick: so we have an hour and we still have it in camera and

[2:51:12] Voice 6: you actually have to be down there

[2:51:14] Voice 6: yeah oh

[2:51:14] Voice 6: no no it leaves it three you have to be down there it

[2:51:17] Trustee Patrick: leaves it oh it leaves the other

[2:51:21] Trustee Patrick: side oh okay

[2:51:22] Trustee Patrick: gotcha sorry so three ten okay so is there any other direction you need planner zupanek

[2:51:29] Trustee Patrick: on what we've given other than we're working on the resolution regarding the legal

[2:51:36] Voice 12: no this is the authorization to spend money from the budget project budget to conduct a

[2:51:44] Voice 12: legal review and clarity on what it is that you want that legal review to achieve okay that's

[2:51:48] Voice 12: that's underway so

[2:51:49] Trustee Patrick: um we were just trying to

[2:51:51] Trustee Patrick: look at our so we'll come back to that motion in a

[2:51:55] Trustee Patrick: minute um christy bernardo i don't want to take a lot of your time are there other items on the

[2:52:01] Trustee Patrick: agenda that you had concerns about or can

[2:52:03] Trustee Patrick: we push through them okay so we're going to continue to

[2:52:06] Trustee Patrick: push forward while he's drafting um and we'll come back to item 10.1 so for correspondence

[2:52:12] Trustee Patrick: at 11.1 we had an email from the agricultural land commission yeah

[2:52:16] Voice 6: and that is concerning okay

[2:52:20] Voice 6: there's

[2:52:20] Trustee Patrick: nothing we can do about it we can do about so receive from receive first sad information okay

[2:52:28] Trustee Patrick: um item 13.1 is the gambier meeting procedure repeal bylaw for final adoption

[2:52:38] Trustee Patrick: okay the staff report on page 42.

[2:52:42] Voice 6: and there's a recommendation yeah so did

[2:52:45] Trustee Patrick: you want to proceed

[2:52:46] Trustee Patrick: yes

[2:52:47] Voice 6: go ahead i moved the gambier on local trust committee bylaws 161 cited gambier on the local

[2:52:54] Voice 6: trust committee meeting procedures repeal bylaw number 161 2025 be adopted is

[2:53:01] Trustee Patrick: there a second

[2:53:02] Trustee Patrick: second by trustee bernardo any discussion call the vote all those in favor that carries then

[2:53:08] Trustee Patrick: And then we have a second adoption here,

[2:53:10] Trustee Patrick: which is bylaw number 162,

[2:53:12] Trustee Patrick: the public notification bylaw on page 46.

[2:53:16] Trustee Patrick: Okay, proceed if you're ready.

[2:53:19] Trustee Patrick: I

[2:53:19] Voice 6: move that the Gambier Island local trust committee

[2:53:21] Voice 6: bylaw number 162 says Gambier Island local trust committee

[2:53:24] Voice 6: public notification bylaw number 162, 2026 be adopted.

[2:53:29] Trustee Patrick: Is there a second?

[2:53:31] Trustee Patrick: Second by trustee Bernardo, any discussion?

[2:53:34] Trustee Patrick: Call the vote, all those in favor, that two carries.

[2:53:38] Trustee Patrick: So then we have a series of reports here.

[2:53:40] Trustee Patrick: We have item 13.3.

[2:53:42] Trustee Patrick: We have highlights of the Trust Conservancy's

[2:53:44] Trustee Patrick: March 17th board meeting for information.

[2:53:47] Voice 6: Yes,

[2:53:48] Trustee Patrick: it's good there.

[2:53:49] Trustee Patrick: They're including more and more.

[2:53:51] Trustee Patrick: 13.4 is the Islands Trust Conservancy report

[2:53:54] Trustee Patrick: to Trust Council 2025 for the fourth quarter update.

[2:53:58] Trustee Patrick: We have the applications report here at 13.5.

[2:54:01] Trustee Patrick: Are there any questions on any of the open page 57?

[2:54:06] Voice 9: have

[2:54:07] Trustee Patrick: you got okay

[2:54:08] Voice 9: just break for 10 minutes

[2:54:13] Voice 9: oh okay

[2:54:14] Voice 9: i can't think straight here i'll

[2:54:15] Trustee Patrick: try to draft this all right

[2:54:16] Voice 9: 16 we

[2:54:17] Trustee Patrick: were just you know we were okay uh we're going to take a short recess for 10 minutes

[3:00:58] Voice 7: let me take us off mute okay i think we're ready to proceed here

[3:01:05] Trustee Patrick: it'll take a little bit of patience um i think let's start with the first part of the motion

[3:01:13] Trustee Patrick: which i think uh planner zupanek had some i had the authorized spending is that what you had or

[3:01:21] Voice 9: no i'm just gonna make a motion that we obtain a legal review and um i don't think we have to

[3:01:28] Voice 9: specifically say which bucket it comes out of that's the one that's the only bucket we've got

[3:01:32] Voice 9: to spend money or

[3:01:35] Voice 6: a legal bucket a

[3:01:36] Trustee Patrick: legal bucket there must be a legal

[3:01:38] Voice 6: bucket somewhere we'll

[3:01:39] Trustee Patrick: we'll start with drafting but planner zupanik did you have a you

[3:01:45] Voice 12: need to authorize the release of

[3:01:46] Voice 12: funds from your major project funding okay right

[3:01:50] Voice 7: i can't spend

[3:01:51] Voice 12: your money unless i understand

[3:01:53] Voice 12: exactly that you understood that's where it's coming from so it's your major project

[3:01:56] Voice 12: budget so you authorize staff to release the necessary funds to conduct a legal review of

[3:02:04] Voice 12: draft bylaw number 163 with the following scope of legal review and please identify what that is

[3:02:12] Voice 12: all

[3:02:12] Trustee Patrick: right so that's good so uh lisa let's no i'm ready to go okay you're ready all right

[3:02:17] Trustee Patrick: So go slowly, Lisa, here we go.

[3:02:20] Trustee Patrick: I move that

[3:02:22] Voice 9: the draft OCP

[3:02:25] Voice 2: text be reviewed

[3:02:30] Voice 2: for its

[3:02:31] Voice 9: legal effect and specifically whether colon,

[3:02:43] Voice 9: new paragraph number one,

[3:02:49] Voice 9: paragraphs A and D of the section entitled

[3:02:54] Voice 9: reconciliation principles.

[3:02:55] Voice 9: just

[3:02:56] Trustee Patrick: wait just just a moment let's give lisa a chance she's really good but i'm jumping

[3:03:04] Voice 2: you

[3:03:05] Trustee Patrick: got it yes

[3:03:06] Voice 2: okay carry on

[3:03:08] Voice 2: colon new paragraph uh

[3:03:14] Voice 9: semi sorry no semicolon and then the new

[3:03:18] Voice 9: paragraph two paragraphs two and four of the section entitled reconciliation objectives

[3:03:30] Voice 9: New

[3:03:37] Voice 2: paragraph, would fetter the local trust committee's discretion, comma, risk incorporating

[3:03:59] Voice 2: bias or otherwise exceed the local trust committee's jurisdiction that funds from the major project

[3:04:28] Voice 2: budget be released for that purpose, period.

[3:04:42] Trustee Patrick: Whenever you're done, you can read that back, Lisa.

[3:04:44] Trustee Patrick: Through

[3:04:58] Voice 13: the chair, what I have is that the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee request that the draft official community plan text be reviewed for its legal effect.

[3:05:11] Voice 13: And specifically whether one, paragraphs A and D of section titled Reconciliation Principles and two, paragraphs two and four of section titled Reconciliation Objectives.

[3:05:29] Voice 13: would further the local trust committee's discretion risk incorporating

[3:05:33] Voice 13: bias or otherwise exceed the local trust committee's jurisdiction and that funds

[3:05:39] Voice 13: from the major project budget of draft bylaw one six three be released for that

[3:05:45] Voice 13: purpose oh we have agreement is there

[3:05:50] Trustee Patrick: a second and

[3:05:53] Voice 6: a chap second better come

[3:05:55] Voice 6: okay

[3:05:55] Trustee Patrick: that's right so it's been seconded by trustee Stanford any discussion yes

[3:05:59] Trustee Patrick: trustee standard I'm

[3:06:03] Voice 6: not happy that this will be coming out of the major project

[3:06:06] Voice 6: budget this language is seen as potentially a model for other OCPs and I

[3:06:14] Voice 6: think there's a strong rationale for it coming out of another legal budget and

[3:06:20] Voice 6: leaving us with a little bit of money we have to do public engagement so you know

[3:06:27] Voice 6: Oh, if we're depleted, then there's got to be some way to go back and get some more money.

[3:06:32] Voice 6: We need to do this project.

[3:06:36] Voice 6: And having to do this, it's difficult.

[3:06:43] Voice 6: But I also think it's important to get clarity for the community.

[3:06:48] Trustee Patrick: Planner Zipanek?

[3:06:50] Voice 12: We're not recommending the legal review.

[3:06:52] Voice 12: That's why this wouldn't be a regional planning team review, for example, on behalf of other local trust areas.

[3:06:59] Voice 12: this is your specific request for your satisfaction

[3:07:02] Voice 12: that this language reflects your OCP.

[3:07:08] Trustee Patrick: Well, it will be interesting

[3:07:10] Trustee Patrick: because I know Gabriela,

[3:07:12] Trustee Patrick: they said they'll be changing theirs with added text.

[3:07:15] Trustee Patrick: I was wondering, oh, it's going to be coming from,

[3:07:16] Trustee Patrick: I assumed it was coming from this one.

[3:07:20] Trustee Patrick: So we'll see.

[3:07:21] Trustee Patrick: And it's something we'll have to have to look at.

[3:07:24] Trustee Patrick: So anyway,

[3:07:24] Voice 6: I just wanted to state that.

[3:07:26] Trustee Patrick: You got it on the record.

[3:07:27] Trustee Patrick: All right, any further discussion?

[3:07:30] Trustee Patrick: I'll call the vote all those in favor that carries all right we didn't discuss

[3:07:35] Trustee Patrick: the minutes did you want to discuss that today the survey

[3:07:42] Voice 12: survey there's two

[3:07:43] Voice 12: other recommendations in the staff report recommendations number two and

[3:07:47] Voice 12: three on page one of the staff report that still need to be addressed

[3:07:50] Voice 6: page

[3:07:51] Voice 12: 20

[3:07:52] Voice 12: 20.

[3:08:01] Voice 6: So I don't. Okay. I'm going to pass. I'm going to put number two as a motion. I move that the Gambier-on-Local Trust Committee request staff to schedule and facilitate up to two community information meetings subject to available resources in person and or online July or August 2026 to provide information and receive public feedback on the proposed draft shoreline protection development permit area language.

[3:08:34] Trustee Patrick: seconded by trustee Bernardo any discussion all the vote all those in

[3:08:39] Trustee Patrick: favor that carries now

[3:08:42] Voice 6: the third motion we need to discuss the yeah public

[3:08:46] Voice 6: survey and I got it yesterday I know that's not the staff's fault or

[3:08:56] Voice 6: anything it's I'm concerned about putting out a survey that seems to

[3:09:02] Voice 6: to re-ask the original OCP question

[3:09:06] Voice 6: about the need for shore protection.

[3:09:09] Voice 12: And

[3:09:10] Voice 6: there's no introductory paragraph that explains that

[3:09:15] Voice 6: as to why this is even being looked at at all.

[3:09:20] Voice 6: So that's sort of my overall concern

[3:09:22] Voice 6: about looking at this right this second,

[3:09:25] Voice 6: even though I want to get this going.

[3:09:28] Voice 6: And overall, I do think that the survey

[3:09:30] Voice 6: it's really interesting I just am quite concerned about how it's going to be

[3:09:39] Voice 6: perceived and how any decisions that follow it are going to come out of the

[3:09:45] Voice 6: survey yeah

[3:09:47] Trustee Patrick: that's that's my concern I mean you you conduct a survey because

[3:09:50] Trustee Patrick: you're getting added you want added information and so forth and and I see

[3:09:55] Trustee Patrick: planners have been against her hand right so i'm gonna let you go if

[3:10:00] Voice 12: the local trust committee

[3:10:02] Voice 12: wishes to amend recommendation number three and just direct staff to work with the individual

[3:10:08] Voice 12: trustees on tweaking the language of the survey we could do that offline to incorporate a draft

[3:10:13] Voice 12: that you're comfortable with and that could take you know several weeks to go back and forth but

[3:10:20] Voice 12: we don't have to wait until the next meeting for example um to do that so if you're comfortable

[3:10:25] Voice 12: doing that is just working with me where I send you the draft and you can provide me with your

[3:10:30] Voice 12: edits and we can incorporate that and then if the trustees are comfortable with it I can proceed

[3:10:35] Voice 12: with that language in the survey.

[3:10:38] Voice 9: I'm uncertain about what Trustee Stanford's objection is again

[3:10:44] Voice 9: you know a little shaky here because I mean we only got this yesterday I did read it and

[3:10:52] Voice 9: nothing jumped out at me as being particularly objectionable in fact some of the suggestions

[3:10:56] Voice 9: seemed to be pretty good in the sense of taking

[3:11:02] Voice 9: what were some pretty general questions

[3:11:06] Voice 9: and sort of making it more specific

[3:11:08] Voice 9: and kind of making it more comprehensible

[3:11:10] Voice 9: for people to answer.

[3:11:12] Voice 9: So what point of clarification,

[3:11:15] Voice 9: what are the changes to the survey

[3:11:21] Voice 9: that Trustee Stamford has reservations about?

[3:11:24] Voice 9: Well, specifically

[3:11:25] Voice 9: which sections?

[3:11:25] Voice 9: Well,

[3:11:26] Voice 6: it's the survey as a whole, how it's asking the question about DPAs or setbacks.

[3:11:38] Voice 8: We

[3:11:39] Voice 6: have already established through the OCP process that this was a priority.

[3:11:43] Voice 6: This is something that is important to do.

[3:11:45] Voice 6: And by some of the questions, the way they're asked, it's re-asking the question.

[3:11:52] Voice 6: And in the end, if this comes back and nobody wants EPA,

[3:12:00] Voice 6: then what do we do with that?

[3:12:02] Voice 9: Well, then we've got a problem.

[3:12:05] Voice 9: Because

[3:12:05] Voice 6: we already asked this question,

[3:12:07] Voice 9: but about five years ago.

[3:12:10] Voice 9: But which ones?

[3:12:11] Voice 9: I'll give you an example.

[3:12:12] Voice 9: No,

[3:12:12] Voice 6: you ask me.

[3:12:13] Voice 6: Okay,

[3:12:14] Voice 9: but I'm asking you which questions are objectionable.

[3:12:20] Voice 9: What I saw in the original draft

[3:12:22] Voice 9: after some kind of leading questions for example what is now in red 10 the committee struck out

[3:12:28] Voice 9: this question to what extent do you agree that shoreline development should be more

[3:12:32] Voice 9: carefully regulated to address erosion habitat loss and climate change impacts

[3:12:36] Voice 9: if we don't already decided that shoreline protection is necessary what are we asking

[3:12:42] Voice 9: this leading question for they changed it around saying to what extent do you support

[3:12:47] Voice 9: opposed additional shoreline protection within the proposed epa which

[3:12:50] Voice 9: is is that the problem

[3:12:53] Voice 6: No, it's just generally I'm concerned that what we're going to get back is we don't want any changes in a story,

[3:13:02] Voice 6: even though it was considered a priority at the time of the original survey.

[3:13:10] Voice 6: And also, you know, I want to go ahead with this because I think the information will be really interesting.

[3:13:17] Voice 6: But I am concerned about how we move ahead once it's in there.

[3:13:21] Trustee Patrick: Would you be okay if she works with staff

[3:13:23] Trustee Patrick: on finalizing the wording of the survey?

[3:13:25] Trustee Patrick: My

[3:13:26] Voice 6: biggest issue is having a better introduction

[3:13:28] Voice 6: so that people understand where this is coming from.

[3:13:32] Voice 9: I don't object to trustee Sanford working with staff

[3:13:37] Voice 9: to tweak it and fine tune it,

[3:13:42] Voice 9: but to answer her question,

[3:13:45] Voice 9: if the survey comes out and it turns out

[3:13:48] Voice 9: that the people answering are reversing,

[3:13:53] Voice 9: what looked like the community position before i don't view that as the end of the world it's like

[3:13:58] Voice 9: we're not trying to pull one over the community it's like we need to know what they think if

[3:14:02] Voice 9: they've decided they don't want it then that's not determinative but it's something that we need to

[3:14:08] Voice 9: take into consideration so uh by all means go ahead work with staff improve it whatever way

[3:14:13] Voice 9: you see fit but um i would hope that wouldn't result in a huge change to the to the questions

[3:14:20] Voice 9: themselves?

[3:14:21] Voice 6: No, I don't so much. There's a couple of things that I

[3:14:24] Voice 6: another issue that I'm not sure specifically

[3:14:28] Voice 6: whether regular camp users should be

[3:14:32] Voice 6: a group that we are

[3:14:37] Voice 6: asking for input from.

[3:14:41] Voice 6: Generally they're kids.

[3:14:46] Voice 6: They're not land holders

[3:14:48] Voice 6: respond nor do they live on the silence so

[3:14:51] Voice 9: although section three our mandate is for

[3:14:55] Voice 9: everybody in the province yes

[3:14:57] Voice 6: and the kids i take your

[3:15:00] Voice 9: point though the children should not be

[3:15:01] Voice 9: but

[3:15:02] Voice 6: i it's more an interest i mean looking at

[3:15:05] Voice 6: this for the first time it's like those are the

[3:15:07] Voice 6: kinds of things that pop out at me and honestly my biggest thing is to just provide a bit more

[3:15:13] Voice 6: context of that

[3:15:14] Voice 6: beginning well

[3:15:15] Voice 9: let's adjust the resolution to all right planner

[3:15:18] Trustee Patrick: zupanek go ahead

[3:15:19] Trustee Patrick: first i

[3:15:21] Voice 12: have alternate resolution wording if that's helpful sure the gambier island local

[3:15:27] Voice 12: trust committee requests staff to work with trustees on finalizing the shoreline protection

[3:15:32] Voice 12: public engagement survey and launch the digital survey for public participation in early july

[3:15:40] Voice 12: closing mid-september 2026 well

[3:15:43] Voice 9: shouldn't we be should we keep incorporating the feedback then

[3:15:48] Voice 9: you

[3:15:49] Voice 12: can absolutely i mean you can do that in the draft you when i send you this draft it'll have

[3:15:55] Voice 12: all those track changes in it and then you can tweak it however you like so it'll be based on

[3:16:01] Voice 12: this version that's in this um that's attachment four considerably but it's not in in this agenda

[3:16:07] Voice 12: in the package what was sent to you yesterday would be what would be sent back to you for

[3:16:11] Voice 12: further input okay okay

[3:16:13] Voice 12: yep i need that all

[3:16:16] Trustee Patrick: right lisa

[3:16:18] Trustee Patrick: are you uh okay with that leaving that motion

[3:16:22] Trustee Patrick: i have that yes all right and so it's been made by trustee stanford seconded by trustee bernardo

[3:16:28] Trustee Patrick: any discussion i'll call the vote all those in favor that carries anything else then

[3:16:35] Voice 9: you have the camera yes

[3:16:37] Trustee Patrick: no we're going to run through a couple more reports and i'm going to

[3:16:40] Trustee Patrick: forward forward back up we were at 13.5 the applications report on page 57. any questions

[3:16:46] Trustee Patrick: on any open applications i have some but they can wait till next month okay uh trustee expense

[3:16:54] Trustee Patrick: report at uh 13.6 primarily here for your information uh adopted policies and standing

[3:17:02] Trustee Patrick: resolutions page 65 any updates on First Nation building relationships and then

[3:17:15] Trustee Patrick: we have our active projects report at 14.1 on page 76 are there in probably no

[3:17:20] Trustee Patrick: changes to that at this point nope and then the future projects report which I

[3:17:26] Trustee Patrick: hate the name of on page 77 should be just called parking lot

[3:17:30] Voice 1: list of things

[3:17:35] Trustee Patrick: all right so that means our next meeting is going to be july 21st here on gambier community center

[3:17:41] Trustee Patrick: at 10 a.m and this stuff will hopefully can always change the time so thank you everyone that came

[3:17:49] Trustee Patrick: today and we're going to be moving into a closed meeting and i would need that motion please i can

[3:17:56] Voice 9: do that i move that

[3:17:57] Voice 9: the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with the community charter

[3:18:00] Voice 9: part four division three section ninety sub one sub a sub f and sub i for the purpose of

[3:18:08] Voice 9: considering a personal information about an identifiable individual holds or is being

[3:18:13] Voice 9: considered for a position as an officer employee or agent in the municipality or another position

[3:18:18] Voice 9: appointed by the municipality f law enforcement if the council considers that disclosure could

[3:18:23] Voice 9: reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment

[3:18:29] Voice 9: i the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications

[3:18:33] Voice 9: necessary for that purpose and that the recorder and staff attend the meeting so

[3:18:39] Trustee Patrick: a second right

[3:18:40] Trustee Patrick: trustee stanford any discussion i'll call the vote all those in favor carry so we'll uh wait a moment