Galiano Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, August 25, 2026

[0:00:04] Voice 6: alrighty folks well sorry about the delay but here we are at the north end

[0:00:09] Voice 6: and I want to call this regular meeting of the Galeano Island Local Trust

[0:00:17] Voice 6: Committee to order final one of the term we're recording the meeting no live

[0:00:23] Voice 6: streaming today because here we are and I want to acknowledge that we're

[0:00:28] Voice 6: gathered here today on the territory of Coast Salish peoples and in particular

[0:00:32] Voice 6: of the Connecticut Tribe, stewards of these lands and waters since time immemorial.

[0:00:39] Voice 6: And we have Councillor Kent O'Thomas sent his regrets today, I talked to him earlier

[0:00:49] Voice 6: in the week.

[0:00:50] Voice 6: I wish he could be here but he cannot.

[0:00:54] Voice 6: So we have an agenda before us and I'll look to see if there's any amendments desired for

[0:01:01] Voice 6: today's agenda.

[0:01:13] Voice 6: I'll take it by general consent we'll approve the agenda as presented with the

[0:01:20] Voice 6: addendum and let's get started with the trustee reports who would like to go first.

[0:01:25] Voice 15: I'll go first. So far this August, hello everybody and welcome. I hope everybody is having an excellent summer.

[0:01:33] Voice 15: enjoy the beautiful weather. So far this month, I've been focused on the restaurant. I've had quite a few meetings since our last meeting, but this is my only meeting this month, which is very unusual.

[0:01:47] Voice 15: But I really appreciate the time to focus on the restaurant. Since our last meeting, I've attended the full gamut of committee meetings. I serve on the Governance Committee.

[0:02:00] Voice 15: I'm the chair of the Accessibility Committee, I'm also on the Trust Programs Committee,

[0:02:05] Voice 15: and I'm currently the chair of the Atlas Trust Conservancy.

[0:02:08] Voice 15: Some notable highlights over the last few months are my participation in the Atlas Trust Community Stewardship Awards.

[0:02:17] Voice 15: The program honors individuals and groups in protecting the environment, the history, the culture, and the trust area.

[0:02:24] Voice 15: A program runs once every four-year elected term, and this is the 18th cycle of it.

[0:02:34] Voice 15: The 2026 winners were officially announced at the voting meeting last June, and the next

[0:02:41] Voice 15: nominations opened up in March of 2029.

[0:02:46] Voice 15: The 2026 winners included the former chair of the Daniela LTC, Dan Rogers, who was elected

[0:02:53] Voice 15: for his dedication and continuous community leadership on Keats Island and the Howe Sound area.

[0:03:00] Voice 15: Also notable, Sheila Harrington, who won the individual award on Mesquite Island,

[0:03:06] Voice 15: and she is specifically recognized for her recently published book,

[0:03:11] Voice 15: Voices for the Islands, 30 Years of Nature Conservation in the Salish Sea.

[0:03:18] Voice 15: The other recipients of the community stewardship awards will be recognized locally

[0:03:22] Voice 15: at the local trust committees and the Boyd Island Municipality in meetings over the next few months.

[0:03:29] Voice 15: On the Governance Committee, we have undertaken a review of a new corporate planning process.

[0:03:35] Voice 15: Seattle Brony put together an effective draft plan for consideration, and the Governance Committee, after a few amendments,

[0:03:43] Voice 15: opted to board the Planet Trust Council at our September meeting.

[0:03:48] Voice 15: Those dates for the September meeting are September 9th to the 11th, and that will be

[0:03:53] Voice 15: our Wyoming Council meeting for this term.

[0:03:56] Voice 15: Speaking of a new term, nomination period opens up September 1st at 9am and closes September

[0:04:04] Voice 15: 11th at 4pm.

[0:04:06] Voice 15: Candidate nomination packages and additional information is available through the Islands

[0:04:11] Voice 15: Trust and through the CRP.

[0:04:12] Voice 15: I think

[0:04:13] Voice 14: I'll leave it there for now.

[0:04:15] Voice 14: Thank you.

[0:04:16] Voice 6: Are

[0:04:17] Voice 14: we recording right now? We're

[0:04:21] Voice 6: recording but we're not streaming.

[0:04:23] Voice 14: Okay, I just wanted to make sure because I didn't see it. I'm in the Zoom meeting right now.

[0:04:28] Voice 14: I just wanted to make sure that. Yeah,

[0:04:30] Voice 6: it's kind of this equipment's either either or so

[0:04:34] Voice 14: we're getting a nice recording for

[0:04:35] Voice 6: the minute taker and for anyone viewing it later.

[0:04:38] Voice 6: here.

[0:04:38] Voice 6: Okay, great.

[0:04:39] Voice 8: Trustee Baberly.

[0:04:40] Voice 8: Yeah, thank you.

[0:04:42] Voice 8: It's always nice to be at the North End, it's always nice to be in a place that was built

[0:04:49] Voice 8: so that the children of the North End of Galliano did not have to go to residential schools.

[0:04:53] Voice 8: It's always worth remembering that, that the elders of the North End realized that they

[0:05:00] Voice 8: had to take the matter into their own hands and build their own school so that kids would

[0:05:04] Voice 8: would not do it at school and you know Galeana was a recipient of that and I think holding

[0:05:11] Voice 8: meetings in this hall is a good remembrance of why we do reconciliation and where reconciliation

[0:05:17] Voice 8: started.

[0:05:19] Voice 8: The other thing I have to report on is just we attended the committee the whole meeting

[0:05:24] Voice 8: and the trust policy statement was sort of officially put off until, unofficially put

[0:05:30] Voice 8: off until until next term so um we won't be hearing any more of that during this term and

[0:05:36] Voice 8: we're sort of winding down this term anyway so uh not a lot to report um good to see everybody and

[0:05:42] Voice 8: uh good to be back at the moment thank you

[0:05:47] Voice 6: and uh um for my chair support uh lisa between lisa

[0:05:52] Voice 6: and ben you guys have sort of got the the business coming up of course we've got trust council uh

[0:05:58] Voice 6: early in September and that'll be as usual look at early look at the budget and that sort of thing

[0:06:07] Voice 6: but also recognizing we are at the end of the term so mostly just finishing up some loose ends I guess

[0:06:13] Voice 6: and trying to prepare the next term. One of the things I have said on this year is a trustee

[0:06:22] Voice 6: onboarding um working group trying to take the the experiences of of trustees current um and uh

[0:06:31] Voice 6: some of us have been around longer and some of us have been around just the term and trying to

[0:06:37] Voice 6: sort of get the pieces in place as best we can to get the the new slate of trustees the the the

[0:06:44] Voice 6: information and sort of the in the best format and everything that we we can so we'll see how that

[0:06:50] Voice 6: rolls out hopefully it's it's improving uh as it rolls along um and as this term is drawing

[0:07:00] Voice 6: to close i've been reflecting on the past four years of our work together and the thing that

[0:07:05] Voice 6: stands out for me um is the relationship building between this local trust committee and the

[0:07:10] Voice 6: penelope tribe and i was just thinking about this spring that we gathered to hold the public hearings

[0:07:16] Voice 6: and Chief Jack and a number of

[0:07:20] Voice 6: councillors were here and

[0:07:22] Voice 6: a larger number of Penelakut elders

[0:07:24] Voice 6: joined us and they shared

[0:07:26] Voice 6: stories and their hopes

[0:07:28] Voice 6: and their gratitude

[0:07:29] Voice 6: for the work we've done together and it was

[0:07:32] Voice 6: an intensely emotional and really poignant

[0:07:34] Voice 6: moment I thought and that's

[0:07:36] Voice 6: really rare in the

[0:07:38] Voice 6: proceedings of government

[0:07:40] Voice 6: so I just wanted to honour that

[0:07:42] Voice 6: we wanted to, we were hoping we'd reach

[0:07:44] Voice 6: adoption before the end of the term but of course things are with the minister and we can't we don't

[0:07:50] Voice 6: have any agency to make them work faster but that would have been nice uh regardless of what we did

[0:07:56] Voice 6: together is really important work and i want to give um huge credit to councillor ken thomas

[0:08:02] Voice 6: um who acted as the de facto liaison between penelope chief and council and the local trust

[0:08:09] Voice 6: committee and diligently attended like so many meetings the vast majority of

[0:08:16] Voice 6: our LTC meetings this term and I think without him I'm not sure we would have

[0:08:22] Voice 6: come as far and built a relationship as far as we have I also want to give

[0:08:29] Voice 6: credit to my fellow trustees and to our staff and the community of Galliano

[0:08:35] Voice 6: because the dedication and care of everybody involved was really vital to

[0:08:42] Voice 6: to the work that we did together and you know the intent and the effect of those

[0:08:49] Voice 6: bylaws and and you know once they're adopted and everything goes through to

[0:08:55] Voice 6: actually actually a meaningful form of land back and that's that's a really

[0:09:00] Voice 6: powerful and beautiful thing and yeah one of my mentors would say we we came

[0:09:10] Voice 6: together with good hearts and good minds and and it's a good history history in a

[0:09:16] Voice 6: good way and it's been my privilege and an honor to be involved in that and to

[0:09:21] Voice 6: be the chair of this local trust committee so thank you everyone and we'll

[0:09:29] Voice 6: We'll get back to our regular programming now.

[0:09:33] Voice 14: Chair Peterson, if I may.

[0:09:35] Voice 14: Yes.

[0:09:35] Voice 14: I've been asked by Lisa Ballard, our minute taker, if you're able to join the Zoom meeting

[0:09:41] Voice 14: session here.

[0:09:43] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:09:43] Voice 6: Okay, let's try that.

[0:09:44] Voice 14: So she's excited and unmuted, but she probably doesn't want to hear me.

[0:09:48] Voice 6: Okay, let's try that.

[0:10:34] Voice 6: Okay, so I am now in the Zoom meeting, and Lisa, just for your information, I am doing

[0:10:41] Voice 6: an osb or obs recording so that you can have a good clean copy because we know that internet

[0:10:47] Voice 6: here is um not super reliable so we've had uh the reports and we're now on to section 11 the minutes

[0:11:00] Voice 6: we have the uh the minutes of june 9th for adoption any corrections to those minutes

[0:11:07] Voice 6: No amendments?

[0:11:07] Voice 12: No.

[0:11:08] Voice 6: No?

[0:11:08] Voice 6: Well, I'll take it by general consent.

[0:11:10] Voice 6: We will adopt those as presented.

[0:11:14] Voice 6: And then we have the record of the public hearing.

[0:11:19] Voice 15: I had one amendment.

[0:11:21] Voice 15: It's a typo.

[0:11:22] Voice 15: I'm going to be that person.

[0:11:24] Voice 15: Okay.

[0:11:24] Voice 15: On page 16, where it says Todd, it's supposed to say Todd Rogers.

[0:11:29] Voice 15: It actually doesn't say that.

[0:11:31] Voice 15: It's a cheat.

[0:11:34] Voice 15: It's a typo.

[0:11:35] Voice 15: Okay.

[0:11:36] Voice 15: It should be Todd Rogers.

[0:11:38] Voice 15: Okay.

[0:11:38] Voice 15: all

[0:11:39] Voice 6: right so we will that's it

[0:11:41] Voice 6: yeah so that's will be noted and then we have uh resolutions

[0:11:48] Voice 6: without name report on page 17. that's for our information that brings us to the follow-up

[0:11:57] Voice 6: action list starting on page 18 and i'm going to go over to planners.till to see if uh you'd

[0:12:03] Voice 6: like to highlight anything of course yes

[0:12:04] Voice 14: thank you chair so on page 18 of the agenda which is

[0:12:08] Voice 14: page one of the follow-up action list at the very bottom um the item that was assigned on december

[0:12:17] Voice 14: 9th uh 2025 which states that staff to set up meeting with canal chief council and staff um

[0:12:25] Voice 14: with galliano ltc i know that that was pushed back due to scheduling and so forth i'm wondering if we

[0:12:31] Voice 14: should take that off the follow-up action list and leave it up to the next ltc perhaps in the

[0:12:37] Voice 14: a new year, set up a meeting with the Kipchoom staff then, or would you like to keep it on

[0:12:46] Voice 14: and just let it fall forward for the next LTC?

[0:12:51] Voice 14: Just wanted to flag that one there.

[0:12:53] Voice 15: I think we should keep it on, as a placeholder at least.

[0:12:58] Voice 8: Yeah, there's no reason to take it off, I mean,

[0:12:59] Voice 14: it's there.

[0:13:03] Voice 14: I'll make a note that at this meeting that we chit-chatted about it and the LTC wanted

[0:13:10] Voice 14: to keep it up on the follow-up action list.

[0:13:13] Voice 14: The next item I wanted to update on is the rezonings for district law 85 and 86, so staff

[0:13:26] Voice 14: are working with the applicants in terms of the covenants, one of the covenants just needed

[0:13:31] Voice 14: needed a little bit more tweaking and converting because it was based on an older covenant.

[0:13:37] Voice 14: So hopefully we can get those covenants registered sooner rather than later.

[0:13:43] Voice 14: The LTC has the ability to adopt bylaws by RWM, resolution without meaning, so that is

[0:13:51] Voice 14: also an option for on the next LTC meeting as long as those covenants are registered.

[0:13:57] Voice 14: And that's also the same update I wanted to provide, I know this is in the application

[0:14:02] Voice 14: list, but it's also in the call to action list, so I thought I'd mention it as well.

[0:14:06] Voice 14: The Pomburg rezoning application, we're waiting for the applicant to register their

[0:14:13] Voice 14: covenant, once that covenant is registered on title, then they will come back to the

[0:14:18] Voice 14: LTC for consideration of adoption, and again that can be done by R21 as well.

[0:14:23] Voice 14: I know that there is an applicant waiting for covenant discharge, and I believe your chair will be in the Victoria office tomorrow to

[0:14:32] Voice 6: sign the documents,

[0:14:33] Voice 14: so we'll be getting you a pen ready for that.

[0:14:36] Voice 14: Those are the updates I have at this time.

[0:14:38] Voice 6: Okay, any questions on any of that?

[0:14:40] Voice 6: No, that's on screen for me.

[0:14:41] Voice 6: Okay, thanks.

[0:14:43] Voice 6: You're absolutely right, I did skip right over the public participation piece, did I? Yes, I did.

[0:14:53] Voice 6: So let's go

[0:14:54] Voice 6: there now. So as usual, I'll look for a show of hands. I'll ask folks to speak ideally to items on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Local Trust Committee or at least Islands Trust.

[0:15:11] Voice 6: I use respectful language and keep your comments brief. If there's a lot of hands, I'll be pulling out the timer. So I'll just look for a show of hands who'd like to address the Local Trust Committee today.

[0:15:26] Voice 6: three, four people, five people.

[0:15:29] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:15:31] Voice 11: I'm going to start.

[0:15:31] Voice 11: Can I ask one question?

[0:15:33] Voice 11: Sure.

[0:15:33] Voice 11: I'd like to address a specific,

[0:15:35] Voice 11: a re-joining question of Chris and I.

[0:15:39] Voice 11: Is this the time to talk about it,

[0:15:40] Voice 11: or is it when it gets brought up?

[0:15:43] Voice 6: Okay, so just for clarity,

[0:15:44] Voice 6: if you're an applicant,

[0:15:47] Voice 6: you can speak to the piece when we're on that.

[0:15:51] Voice 6: If you're not an applicant,

[0:15:52] Voice 6: then now is your time.

[0:15:53] Voice 6: Okay, thank you.

[0:15:56] Voice 6: And so I'm going to start over on this end with Carmita.

[0:15:59] Voice 4: Will you wait for me? I want to listen to what other people say.

[0:16:03] Voice 6: Okay. I'll start way down on this end with Keo.

[0:16:09] Voice 10: Hi, I'm Keo. I'd like to speak to the Crystal Mountain application

[0:16:17] Voice 10: and consider the intent of the Trust as an organization required to use zoning as its

[0:16:37] Voice 10: basically only tool for social, local, and environmental guidance.

[0:16:47] Voice 10: guidance, and that the occupation of Crystal Mountain does not conform in almost any way

[0:16:55] Voice 10: to the intent of forest and forestry, which is the major part of its zoning.

[0:17:04] Voice 10: Have things been otherwise, and intent and aligning, meaning the intent of the zoning

[0:17:15] Voice 10: in the intent of the applicant being aligned, my attitude might be different, but when it

[0:17:23] Voice 10: comes to forest and forestry, I find that the applicant is not providing dedicated

[0:17:33] Voice 10: interest or activity, and the size of the property is far below the threshold of

[0:17:44] Voice 10: of the ask, that is to say, the number of dwellings, the number of people on it.

[0:17:51] Voice 10: So, should the forest lot be two quarter sections, and the application be similar with an intently

[0:18:02] Voice 10: guided intent, possibly something like the property is our temple and we are here to

[0:18:13] Voice 10: resurrect it from its present state to its more ideal state, then intent would be aligned.

[0:18:21] Voice 10: So in this case, with properties, what I would call a fusion or zoning, a mix of intent

[0:18:31] Voice 10: trying to be fused into some semblance of order, is really a make-work exercise that

[0:18:39] Voice 10: has been proven to be very inefficient and costly to the trust and to the community so

[0:18:49] Voice 10: they there are trustees that are involved in forest and forestry and forest lots

[0:18:57] Voice 10: and since this decision pivots on the those who may be in a skewed and enforced opinion

[0:19:05] Voice 10: union could be requested to recuse themselves in this situation, and second, the trust has

[0:19:15] Voice 10: largely recused itself from the decision by differing to the penalty date, and since the

[0:19:22] Voice 10: applicant has yet to find agreement, I think it's absolutely appropriate that this application

[0:19:31] Voice 10: find its noise.

[0:19:33] Voice 10: Thank you.

[0:19:35] Voice 7: Well, I wanted to speak about the OCP review, the agenda, but first

[0:19:47] Voice 1: I do want to raise an

[0:19:48] Voice 7: issue around Crystal Mountain, and this is a question about what happened.

[0:19:56] Voice 7: We've never, we haven't

[0:19:57] Voice 7: seen, there's been no public reporting about what happened with

[0:20:03] Voice 7: with the consultation process with the Penelope.

[0:20:08] Voice 7: It appears that the process went nowhere,

[0:20:12] Voice 7: but the last time this came forward,

[0:20:15] Voice 7: I think it was in December of 2024,

[0:20:19] Voice 7: and the trust made some motions.

[0:20:21] Voice 7: The trustees made motions urging the Crystal Mountain

[0:20:25] Voice 7: to work with the Penelope in terms of the land transfer

[0:20:35] transfer of the land being

[0:20:37] Voice 7: to Penelope rather than the Ireland Trust Conservancy and since then there's been like silence on what, so I just want to know

[0:20:46] Voice 7: what happened, what happened in the process. Can anyone speak on that?

[0:20:55] Voice 14: I can't but my understanding is the applicant will be speaking in private. But that's maybe directed to Penelope Seaton.

[0:21:02] Voice 14: okay yeah

[0:21:03] Voice 6: i know there is there was a letter in the in the agenda package that spoke to some of

[0:21:10] Voice 6: what was going on there um yeah what do you want

[0:21:17] Voice 7: oh

[0:21:23] Voice 6: this is a more recent letter and do you want

[0:21:28] Voice 6: me to come back i can come back to you yeah i'm glad

[0:21:31] Voice 6: you would come back okay and so i'm going

[0:21:34] Voice 6: to go i'm sorry i don't know your name but um

[0:21:37] Voice 17: okay so i i wanted to speak to the uh the addendum item

[0:21:44] Voice 17: uh the ocp review and i'm the chair of the apc advisory planning commission and we did as you

[0:21:52] Voice 17: know a very detailed report on the uh review of the official of the potential review of the

[0:22:00] Voice 17: official community plan that when we were given referral by you last year at this time

[0:22:06] Voice 17: with some urgency to try to come up with some recommendations for the budgeting process for

[0:22:12] Voice 17: last year and then the plan was not we didn't receive the budget last year so um the first

[0:22:20] Voice 17: question I have is why now on the 23rd of August are we receiving this

[0:22:29] Voice 17: addendum item to the agenda with the need to have a response for September

[0:22:34] Voice 17: the 4th is what I understand from what I'm reading that there's a budget this

[0:22:39] Voice 17: has to go through for a budget decision on September the 4th and it's the 25th

[0:22:44] Voice 17: of August right now and you cancelled the meeting last month and maybe two

[0:22:50] Voice 17: two meetings in the spring and this could have come up and we could have given it proper

[0:22:54] Voice 17: consideration but instead it's, I mean it's just a little bit, it's a bit frustrating

[0:23:01] Voice 17: I guess to receive this so late and it's almost the end of your term and so any decision that

[0:23:08] Voice 17: you're making today about that will be handed on to the new trust, the new trust committee

[0:23:17] Voice 17: and but I just need to understand a little bit about how the forward plan works for the

[0:23:25] Voice 17: trust area and budgeting works because if we do want to proceed with the review of the official

[0:23:31] Voice 17: community plan does a decision have to be made today about it in order to fit into the budget

[0:23:39] Voice 17: cycle and then we're caught in this election period as well so I'm interested to know about

[0:23:46] Voice 17: that and then of course the other big question is where we as a collective

[0:23:54] Voice 17: trust area community are going through the review of the official of the trust

[0:24:00] Voice 17: policy statement and that one as you mentioned earlier has been deferred I

[0:24:07] Voice 17: guess now to the next term and yet an official community plan has to link to the

[0:24:12] Voice 17: trust policy statement so how do all these pieces fit together all that said these are huge projects

[0:24:20] Voice 17: and they're extremely important projects for the future of this island and for all of the islands

[0:24:26] Voice 17: and it's difficult to manage them because they're they're beasts they're large beasts and so i guess

[0:24:33] Voice 17: i have some very specific comments i'd like to reiterate to you from our very detailed report

[0:24:41] Voice 17: that we did last year to keep in mind if you were to go forward but I guess my

[0:24:47] Voice 17: first question is how do you decide to go forward given what I just said that

[0:24:54] Voice 17: election the pressure from budgeting the planning and what is it that you need to

[0:25:00] Voice 17: do to set it up well for the next trust me yeah yeah

[0:25:06] Voice 6: so I mean those are good

[0:25:07] Voice 6: questions and I'm happy to speak to some of that from from my perspective so one

[0:25:12] Voice 6: of them just to back up a little bit one of the reasons that um that the project didn't get

[0:25:18] Voice 6: funding in in the current budget it's because major projects go through the regional planning

[0:25:24] Voice 6: team and they felt they didn't have the capacity to do that to add another ocp review my own ltc

[0:25:33] Voice 6: on Laskiti got the funding but hasn't got the team capacity yet.

[0:25:40] Voice 6: There's a mention there in the report about some efficiencies that staff can see between

[0:25:48] Voice 6: the Laskiti OCP, the Salt Spring one and Galleon one.

[0:25:53] Voice 6: And then just sort of more on process, if this local trust committee decides not to advance a business case, then that means the soonest that an OCP project can get funding would be April of 2028, right?

[0:26:18] Voice 6: So I think the most compelling reason for this committee to send the budget request in is that it gives the new LTC at least the possibility of having funding in place for April 1st, 2027 and getting started on the project.

[0:26:38] Voice 6: If we don't do that, it's guaranteed it won't be until April 1st of 2028.

[0:26:44] Voice 6: So that's kind of, in a sense, I look at it as assisting the new LTC to have options.

[0:26:56] Voice 6: If we were to decide not to advance, we don't want to decide, you know, suppose what we're going to decide here.

[0:27:03] Voice 6: But if we do decide not to advance that budget case, it limits what the incoming LTC can do till at least April 1st, 2028 in terms of no CP review.

[0:27:16] Voice 6: Back to the issue around the policy statement review, I mean, I think it's a big unknown

[0:27:26] Voice 6: whether the new Trust Council is going to decide to pick up that work and whether they're

[0:27:35] Voice 6: going to be able to advance it to multiple readings, let alone adoption in the incoming

[0:27:42] Voice 6: term.

[0:27:44] Voice 6: my perspective over six years as a trustee of the policy statement being worked on

[0:27:51] Voice 6: i don't know

[0:27:52] Voice 12: um

[0:27:53] Voice 6: that being said uh the existing policy statement

[0:27:59] Voice 6: is the one that any new work on on ocps and bylaws must must be um compliant with yeah not at variance

[0:28:08] Voice 6: to and so I noted in the staff report there is some thought about looking at

[0:28:19] Voice 6: some of the proposed policies and the proposed new policy statement and seeing

[0:28:25] Voice 6: if that can be integrated into some of the work and I think that that would

[0:28:29] Voice 6: make sense but of course that wouldn't be it wouldn't be required because the

[0:28:38] Voice 6: policy statement that is in effect at the time of the work is the one that's in effect it's not a

[0:28:43] Voice 6: bad idea to do some forward looking and and look at some of those policies and say uh you know

[0:28:52] Voice 6: that's here's some progressive thought like uh certainly the policies around um first nations

[0:28:58] Voice 6: uh access to the marine shores and that that kind of stuff there's some of it that certainly would

[0:29:05] Voice 6: cause no harm, I think, to at least consider whether some of those policies coming down

[0:29:11] Voice 6: the road, it would create efficiency in terms of an OCP going through the process, and if

[0:29:20] Voice 6: the new policy statement with those policies existing

[0:29:22] Voice 6: happen to come into

[0:29:24] Voice 6: effect, then

[0:29:25] Voice 6: it wouldn't be an immediate go back and revise the work, so I think that's kind of forward

[0:29:31] Voice 6: looking it's not required and of course it's way too far out to know what those

[0:29:38] Voice 6: those discussions about the OCP are really going to look like in the LTC of

[0:29:43] Voice 6: the day but anyway that's a rather long-winded way to try and share my

[0:29:48] Voice 9: sort

[0:29:48] Voice 6: of my perspective around the process part of it

[0:29:53] Voice 17: yeah let's let's do

[0:29:59] Voice 6: that

[0:30:00] Voice 6: to go to jennifer um

[0:30:01] Voice 13: jennifer martinson um i guess just speaking to that same issue and based on the

[0:30:07] Voice 13: information you just provided tim i'm just wondering why it might not be a good idea to

[0:30:14] Voice 13: wait till 2020 because that would give a new um potentially ltc and trust council time to

[0:30:26] Voice 13: acclimatize to their roles and get up to speed, it would give time to focus on the trust policy

[0:30:36] Voice 13: statement and possibly approve one on which I think the current draft has been highly

[0:30:46] Voice 13: criticized and problematic the last community committee the whole meeting

[0:30:55] Voice 13: and I'm not sure if that's when you were referring to Ben but it was cancelled

[0:31:01] Voice 13: for lack of a quorum so it didn't even happen recently so clearly there is work

[0:31:09] Voice 13: that needs to be done on the draft trust policy statement and it just seems to me

[0:31:14] Voice 13: a lot like putting the cart before the horse to land a new LTC and a new trust

[0:31:22] Voice 13: council some of the members may be the same but it'll be a new configuration in

[0:31:28] Voice 13: some way with two significant projects and I'm just not sure that there's local

[0:31:37] Voice 13: community appetite to engage effectively with both those yeah

[0:31:45] Voice 6: no I mean I take

[0:31:47] Voice 6: your point but I think that that like my perspective and trustees if you want to

[0:31:52] Voice 6: chime in let me know but my perspective is that by advancing this business case

[0:31:58] Voice 6: we're not we're not forcing the hand of the incoming LTC to do that work we're

[0:32:05] Voice 6: We're making it possible if they wish to pick that work up, assuming, of course, that the budget request gets approved and all.

[0:32:13] Voice 6: So it would still be up to the new local trust committee to decide whether they want to advance work on a major project on the OCP or not.

[0:32:25] Voice 6: It's just that if we don't, then we've tied their hands.

[0:32:28] Voice 6: So I actually see it not as putting the cart before the horse, but it's enabling options

[0:32:35] Voice 6: for that incoming local trust committee.

[0:32:38] Voice 6: They're in no way obligated to pick up the OCP work.

[0:32:42] Voice 6: They will make their own priorities post-election.

[0:32:46] Voice 6: But if they choose to do that and trust council has approved funding, then they can start

[0:32:54] Voice 6: that work, you know, in 2027 instead of 2028. And that's my perspective. It's giving the

[0:33:03] Voice 6: new LTC options instead of constraining them. That's the way I look at it. I don't know

[0:33:09] Voice 6: if anyone else wants to add to that.

[0:33:11] Voice 8: It feels like we're in the middle of the agenda now, not in the public participation

[0:33:16] Voice 8: portion. We're having a pretty broad discussion about one of the items on the agenda. I think

[0:33:22] Voice 8: there's just so many things to take in consideration that you know one of which

[0:33:28] Voice 8: is just the scrutiny that's coming on the budget alone you know so there's

[0:33:32] Voice 8: there's no guarantee that even if we passed or moved it forward that it would

[0:33:38] Voice 8: even get through the budget it didn't last time and I would anticipate the

[0:33:44] Voice 8: scrutiny on the budget is not going to not going to ease up and so you know

[0:33:52] Voice 8: we'll have that discussion and see whether we give that option to the next set of trustees

[0:33:59] Voice 8: or whether we just tell them you know nobody's doing anything until 2028.

[0:34:04] Voice 8: I think that's what the discussion will be about but I don't think there's any

[0:34:10] Voice 8: sort of advancing the project does in no way means that the project's being advanced just

[0:34:16] Voice 8: just because of the different things

[0:34:19] Voice 8: that are happening around trust counsel,

[0:34:22] Voice 8: especially in concerns with the budget

[0:34:24] Voice 8: and the trust policy statement.

[0:34:29] Voice 4: Judge Morris, the same thing.

[0:34:31] Voice 4: And I don't think that you will give that freedom

[0:34:39] Voice 4: to the LTC until the draft policy statement is not resolved.

[0:34:48] Voice 4: When we know the OCP has to be consistent

[0:34:51] Voice 4: system with the draft, with the Trust Policy System.

[0:34:56] Voice 4: So say that they have the money and they decide to begin working and after, the next Trust

[0:35:04] Voice 4: Policy System is quite different.

[0:35:07] Voice 4: It will be quite costly that you have to review again the OCP to work with the new Trust Policy

[0:35:15] Voice 4: System.

[0:35:16] Voice 4: It will be enough work for the new trustees to have to work through this draft policy

[0:35:23] Voice 4: statement.

[0:35:24] Voice 4: When they go through that, they will have much a better idea about an OCP for Galeano

[0:35:32] Voice 4: or for any of the other islands.

[0:35:35] Voice 4: Because it is the base, the draft policy statement and they are directed and they are guidelines

[0:35:41] Voice 4: are the ones that have to be followed by the OCP.

[0:35:45] Voice 4: So how will you want to review and have the funds for a review of the OCP when you don't have the main document?

[0:35:56] Voice 4: What are you basing it on? In the current one, that could be completely different. Referring to the draft, it doesn't work either because it could be different.

[0:36:05] Voice 4: So you are putting all that money, quite a lot of money and time, to do something that

[0:36:14] Voice 4: maybe has to be changed.

[0:36:15] Voice 4: And also about the budget, because it's costly for everybody, these things.

[0:36:23] Voice 4: The draft policy statement for what I saw, the estimate before first reading was $335,000.

[0:36:33] Voice 4: dollars it will be much more and you are wanting to spend 157

[0:36:40] Voice 4: something the budget for six millions from one to the

[0:36:46] Voice 4: other and i think you should consider that

[0:36:48] Voice 4: those this aspect about taxpayers and she has to enter a new

[0:36:55] Voice 4: project because i have already talked to you

[0:36:59] Voice 4: this is completely different it's something that

[0:37:02] Voice 4: But I think a sentence is quite unfortunate in this, when they ask, they give you options

[0:37:15] Voice 4: in page 6 and 7, they give you option 1, that is the good one according to the report, because

[0:37:21] Voice 4: you will do a comprehensive new OSPI, and lastly you have option 2 and option 3, that

[0:37:30] Voice 4: they show you the problems, you know, option 3 is nothing, option 2 is just changes.

[0:37:37] Voice 4: And for me, this sentence was very unfortunate. Here it says, it's talking about particular

[0:37:56] Voice 4: 5.91 verb. This is not in line with interest, we have heard confirmations.

[0:38:05] Voice 4: These legal challenges is complete with best practices.

[0:38:13] Voice 4: And to me, to put the First Nations, it's only the First Nations here are the bad guys, you know.

[0:38:19] Voice 4: The bad guys can't stop you. The bad guys cannot do this.

[0:38:25] Voice 4: To me, it's so wrong, because after, I think the staff, the administration of the Island Trust knows,

[0:38:35] Voice 4: I'm

[0:38:36] Voice 6: just going to ask you to wrap up and I can come

[0:38:37] Voice 4: back to you.

[0:38:38] Voice 6: After

[0:38:38] Voice 4: the Commission decision, after the survey where you saw the responses and then reconciliation,

[0:38:45] Voice 4: to put here the First Nation, like it could be the problem, the First Nation could be

[0:38:50] Voice 4: the problem.

[0:38:51] Voice 6: Okay, I understand.

[0:38:52] Voice 6: I'll come back if we need to go on.

[0:38:55] Voice 6: So I heard about Saga down here.

[0:38:57] Voice 6: Jane?

[0:38:58] Voice 17: Jane Wilbertson, I just wanted to speak briefly to the addendum regarding the OCP review.

[0:39:05] Voice 17: Just to remind people that our last OCP review cost virtually nothing.

[0:39:14] Voice 17: There were seven committees, they were chaired, there were over 120 people participating,

[0:39:20] Voice 17: and I think that it's important that there be that kind of community involvement

[0:39:26] Voice 17: so that people do understand what it is the trust does, you know, and so when I look at a budget of $157,000,

[0:39:38] Voice 17: a third party contractor, I think, you know, really, is that going to bring to Galliano,

[0:39:47] Voice 17: or is that going to give us a good product in the end?

[0:39:52] Voice 17: And I think that those committees met, like, I chaired one of them, and we met all the time, and we reviewed all of the, it happened to be the agriculture, we reviewed all of that, we came up with new terms, and it was challenging.

[0:40:10] Voice 17: And when I look back, I can see we made mistakes, but I think it's important that there be the community involvement.

[0:40:17] Voice 17: So I, you know, I know that some communities are just willing to hand it off to a third party contractor, you know, develop stuff and then review it, but to me that's not participation.

[0:40:35] Voice 6: I see a hand in the back there that hasn't spoken yet.

[0:40:38] Voice 6: Okay,

[0:40:40] Voice 17: I just wanted to, I'm Sandy Butler, and I got the addendum when it came out, and I thought, oh, well, I'd have a look at it, and I noted that no motion was made to have staff prepare a business case for an OTC review.

[0:41:01] Voice 17: According to the report, it was noted that the LTC would like to have such a business case prepared.

[0:41:09] Voice 17: That is now a process that's recognized by the Trust Policy Best Management Practices.

[0:41:15] Voice 17: And I'm glad to see that there was some discussion about the fact that the next LTC should be free to set their own priorities.

[0:41:25] Voice 17: but I don't think it's fair to set that up

[0:41:29] Voice 17: and settle the next LTC with saying

[0:41:32] Voice 17: they don't want to do that.

[0:41:34] Voice 17: And aside from the procedural issues,

[0:41:36] Voice 17: I would note that although no consultants would be hired,

[0:41:40] Voice 17: a temporary staff member will be required.

[0:41:43] Voice 17: There is a recommendation as well

[0:41:45] Voice 17: that the draft trust policy statement be referenced,

[0:41:48] Voice 17: even though it is not yet been adopted.

[0:41:50] Voice 17: It has been an unusual practice

[0:41:53] Voice 17: is not to undertake new initiatives so close to an election.

[0:41:57] Voice 17: And I'm asking you to please defer the matter

[0:41:59] Voice 17: until the new LTC is elected.

[0:42:03] Voice 17: And I agree with Jane about the community participation.

[0:42:07] Voice 17: When the last OCP review was done,

[0:42:09] Voice 17: we had seven different committees and a steering committee

[0:42:12] Voice 17: to make sure that all the recommendations

[0:42:14] Voice 17: of the seven committees would mesh.

[0:42:16] Voice 17: You know, the trust policy statement is meant to be not,

[0:42:20] Voice 17: not, you know, like fragmented into various little checklists. It's meant to work together, and it took a long time, and, you know, and I would hope, and I know there was a sentence at the very end of the staff report, which says community engagement and such will be initiated, but, you know, that's the very last sentence in the whole report, and which wasn't even, a motion wasn't even put forward to have the report.

[0:42:49] Voice 17: as I said, but, you know, I just think that it's kind of much more important. If it's an official community plan review, it should involve the community, not hand it off to staff.

[0:43:04] Voice 17: And I also think that the drive to have the Trust Policy Statement review is largely driven by staff. And I have wanted to say this for a long time.

[0:43:16] Voice 17: I don't want to be insulting to staff, but I believe this to be true.

[0:43:24] Voice 6: Okay

[0:43:25] Voice 6: I'm going to just go to a hand I have not heard from yet.

[0:43:28] Voice 6: Go ahead.

[0:43:30] Voice 12: I am inspired by thinking back on the NCP review that we had, what, 2009? I think it was.

[0:43:37] Voice 12: Probably took about two years to get all the way to have it completed.

[0:43:42] Voice 12: And I participated in a couple of those committees, I think half the people in this room did, actually.

[0:43:47] And I just would really underscore what Jane was saying.

[0:43:53] Voice 12: It's so important to this community that we do it that way again, with community-wide involvement.

[0:43:59] Voice 12: And the meetings, the individual community meeting, were fantastic because we had all points of view on all those problems on all the committees,

[0:44:08] Voice 12: but the ones that I was on, and with the steering committee, and I just, it may be premature to put in that emphasis right now.

[0:44:16] Voice 12: I assume that we'll have a chance at some later time to say we want to re-base the Galliano

[0:44:23] Voice 12: trees?

[0:44:24] Voice 12: Okay.

[0:44:24] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:44:26] Voice 6: Yeah.

[0:44:26] Voice 6: Just to that point, I think that from my perspective, notwithstanding the contents of the staff

[0:44:33] Voice 6: report, if funding is approved by a trust council for an OCP project for Galliano, the

[0:44:41] Voice 6: The local trust committee of the day is in the driver's seat.

[0:44:47] Voice 6: Like, that's how it should go, and that's how it will be.

[0:44:52] Voice 6: They could change the scope.

[0:44:53] Voice 6: They could decide to make it targeted.

[0:44:56] Voice 6: They could do all number of things.

[0:44:59] Voice 6: This, again, my perspective is that this presents, from a funding perspective,

[0:45:05] Voice 6: presents the incoming local trust committee with options.

[0:45:09] Voice 6: What they choose to do with those options, I don't know.

[0:45:13] Voice 6: Anyone that hasn't

[0:45:14] Voice 6: spoken yet, that wants to speak before we move on, because I'm...

[0:45:19] Voice 6: Okay, so second time around, and I'm going to just remind you to please be brief.

[0:45:25] Voice 6: We do actually have some other business today, but go ahead, Gillian.

[0:45:31] Voice 17: So Gillian, again, Gillian Dusty.

[0:45:34] Voice 17: I'm so glad that these three people said what they said, because in our APC report that we did

[0:45:42] Voice 17: that has been referenced in in the staff report which i thank very much for that um there were

[0:45:48] Voice 17: a number of things that should the this should you decide to um approve the business case to go

[0:45:58] Voice 17: forward um the first question i have is and it sounds like it's not the case um how tied the next

[0:46:05] Voice 17: uh ltc would be to the exact parameters of what's in this business case that's being presented

[0:46:12] Voice 17: because if it's tied to that, I think that I would hope that the three of you would have some serious discussion before you click forward.

[0:46:19] Voice 17: And the things that I think are so important that came out of our report, which I should reiterate,

[0:46:27] Voice 17: that there were seven people on our commission, all of whom put a lot of energy over three months into that report

[0:46:34] Voice 17: and referred to, asked other members of the community to provide input,

[0:46:39] Voice 17: but it wasn't a community broad based report because it was the seven brains and whoever we

[0:46:45] Voice 17: could talk to with that we had the time to talk to but from that we came up with about four or five

[0:46:52] Voice 17: guiding principles that I did and one of them was that it should be community driven and that's what

[0:47:00] Voice 17: people are saying here and should be inspired by how the last OCP review went with the citizen

[0:47:07] Voice 17: an advisory committee but a primary also driver should be data and that there should be and I

[0:47:15] Voice 17: believe the consultant I'm assuming I should say the consultant dollars that are in that budget

[0:47:21] Voice 17: are for any kind of data that you need to have that the committee would need to have to in order

[0:47:30] Voice 17: to plan forward and so related to water and related to water really determine what are the

[0:47:35] Voice 17: data points that are required to develop a really efficient community plan but being data driven is

[0:47:42] Voice 17: very very important and the other thing two other two things are that there's a lot of emphasis now

[0:47:50] Voice 17: and I understand why there's an emphasis in trying to create efficiencies within how the trust is run

[0:47:54] Voice 17: and in how these community official community plans are reviewed but we also have to remember

[0:48:01] Voice 17: that even though we are a large local trust area we are individual islands and

[0:48:09] Voice 17: individual islands are in fact very different and so to apply standardization

[0:48:17] Voice 17: in planning across all the islands could be detrimental and Galleon particularly

[0:48:24] Voice 17: because we have so much undeveloped land here we have an opportunity to create

[0:48:32] Voice 17: something really quite unique here. And so I really encourage you to think about that as we move forward.

[0:48:38] Voice 17: And we had recommended in our report that a vision for the next Official Community Plan

[0:48:46] Voice 17: be that we create a model island of social, economic and ecological health.

[0:48:51] Voice 17: Because we have the ability to do that here. We have the undeveloped land that we have.

[0:48:55] Voice 17: And the final thing is, we are islands, we're not cities, we don't have pressure from two large population bases, but we are unique.

[0:49:07] Voice 17: We are rural and we are islands, so urban planning principles should not be applied to official community planning.

[0:49:15] Voice 17: So those are things I hope you think about and I would stand up and say it all again to the next trust committee after the elections,

[0:49:22] Voice 17: But I wanted to just get that out now, because I think these things are really important

[0:49:27] Voice 17: to think about.

[0:49:29] Voice 6: Yeah, thank you.

[0:49:30] Voice 6: I appreciate it.

[0:49:31] Voice 6: And I'll just make one comment, which is that I know it likely drives staff to distraction

[0:49:40] Voice 6: the fact that local trust committees are fully empowered to change their project charters,

[0:49:47] Voice 6: sometimes midstream.

[0:49:48] Voice 6: so there is no advancing this business case does not constrain the local trust

[0:49:55] Voice 6: committee at the scope of what what they do assuming that it gets money it's

[0:50:01] Voice 6: against back matter it provides options okay second time speakers oh I see a

[0:50:09] Voice 6: couple of first this first time speaker back there go ahead okay

[0:50:12] Voice 16: and i've been just thinking about

[0:50:16] Voice 16: the discussion around the ocp review and i as well as on the last ocp review and the steering

[0:50:22] Voice 16: committee and it was incredibly important that it's be community driven as everyone has said

[0:50:28] Voice 16: because it lends a foundation for how we as a community want to see this island developed or

[0:50:37] Voice 16: not developed, as the case may be. What's different this time, and I'm really

[0:50:43] Voice 16: wondering about, is I'm reading this book called Standoff, Why Reconciliation

[0:50:49] Voice 16: Failed Indigenous People and How to Fix It, and here it says

[0:50:54] Voice 16: very clearly on page 40, if you'll permit me to read this, I think it's so

[0:51:00] Voice 16: important because I would want to know that the foundation for any OCP review

[0:51:05] Voice 16: you started with this basis. Consultation must begin at the earliest stages of planning and

[0:51:12] Voice 16: cannot be postponed. Governments must consult in good faith with an honest intention of substantially

[0:51:18] Voice 16: addressing Indigenous Peoples' concerns. Government officials must have the required powers to change

[0:51:26] Voice 16: the project because consultation without the possibility of accommodation is meaningless.

[0:51:32] Voice 16: with. Governments must listen carefully to concerns and work to minimize adverse effects

[0:51:38] Voice 16: on Aboriginal rights and treaty rights. They should be open to abandoning or rejecting

[0:51:44] Voice 16: proposals. If there is a decision to proceed, governments should demonstrably integrate

[0:51:50] Voice 16: responses to Indigenous peoples' concerns into revised plans of action. And I'm thinking

[0:51:58] Voice 16: that I think that this will require an additional duty of care, which means I don't see how we can go forward with an OCP review without having laid the foundation really well.

[0:52:14] Voice 16: And I don't see in the addendum that I saw a $10,000 budget item for consulting Indigenous people,

[0:52:25] Voice 16: but I don't have the confidence, based on how Indigenous people have been consulted in the past,

[0:52:32] Voice 16: as a sort of a checklist and a rubber stamp at the end,

[0:52:36] Voice 16: I don't feel confident about the way it's been laid out in the addendum.

[0:52:44] Voice 16: So I would want to know from our trustees and this LTC committee that there is going to be that duty of care to have the foundation set with Indigenous participation, not just consultation, but participation in the process.

[0:53:02] Voice 16: So thank you.

[0:53:05] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:53:06] Voice 6: Okay, so anyone else?

[0:53:11] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:53:12] Voice 6: Go ahead, Gail.

[0:53:16] Voice 10: I'd like to speak to the OCP review and the trust policy statement review, and I also feel that the making the money available to the trustees in their next term without the organization and participation and the pre-intent of where the money's going and what it's for is to subtract other requests of the budget.

[0:53:46] Voice 10: budget that have immediate application from being accessible because there is been a poor

[0:53:56] Voice 10: organization of community involvement and a poor organization of Aboriginal involvement.

[0:54:05] Voice 10: To have the money ready to go when there is no organization is like giving a racehorse

[0:54:12] Voice 10: course to an ill-prepared driver, a course that goes nowhere, or anywhere.

[0:54:21] Voice 10: So, I do not suggest that it should be applied for, and so there's clear opportunity, intent,

[0:54:30] Voice 10: and direction.

[0:54:32] Voice 7: Okay.

[0:54:33] Voice 7: Kurt, did you have something to add?

[0:54:35] Voice 7: I was going to speak to the need for community involvement and participation in the OCP review

[0:54:40] Voice 7: review process, but others have spoken very eloquently about it, started by Jane and others,

[0:54:47] Voice 7: Sandy, Akasha.

[0:54:50] Voice 7: That's a really critical element that was part of our APC report that the trustees asked

[0:54:56] Voice 7: us to do, and it should be taken seriously, and it's disappointing that it's not really

[0:55:01] Voice 7: reflected in the business case that's going to you today.

[0:55:05] Voice 7: Anyway, that's all on that.

[0:55:08] Voice 7: The

[0:55:08] Voice 9: other issue I want to talk about is

[0:55:10] Voice 7: the Crystal Mountain application, which the planners are recommending be closed down because of a lack of indication, lack of movement, lack of progress of where it's going.

[0:55:27] Voice 7: The last time we heard anything about this was a letter a year ago, which made no reference

[0:55:37] Voice 7: whatsoever to the process of consultation with the Pernillica.

[0:55:41] Voice 7: It's very strange because that was the key element remaining for this application to

[0:55:49] Voice 7: proceed.

[0:55:51] Voice 7: Consulting and working out arrangements with the Pernillica involving the transfer of land

[0:55:56] Voice 7: for the 75% instead of the Amherst Trust Conservancy.

[0:56:00] Voice 7: Now I've just been handed a letter that apparently

[0:56:03] Voice 7: Crystal Mountain has sent a few days ago

[0:56:07] Voice 7: asking you not to do what the planners are recommending,

[0:56:12] Voice 7: saying that there wasn't enough notice.

[0:56:14] Voice 7: Well, the staff report makes very clear

[0:56:19] Voice 7: that since December, basically since December

[0:56:27] Voice 7: of 2024 since 25 December 24 staff have received limited communication or updates from the applicant

[0:56:36] Voice 7: this is about in the midst of the process of talking to the delegate consulting with the

[0:56:42] Voice 7: delegate limited applications all they got all the trustees got was an April 2025 correspondence

[0:56:49] Voice 7: from the applicant's legal representative talking about resolving the modern revisits project,

[0:56:57] Voice 7: resolving the rezoning committee, and various things about trade deals across the district

[0:57:05] Voice 7: counties that are happening, putting this thing together.

[0:57:09] Voice 7: And that's the last communication, that substantial communication, my understanding, that the

[0:57:15] Voice 7: trust has received.

[0:57:16] Voice 7: So, it's not surprising that the trust, that staff is recommending closing down the file.

[0:57:23] Voice 7: Closing down the file would mean that the applicant would have to cease non-compliant

[0:57:29] Voice 7: activities on the land, and the request, I don't know what they're requesting, it's something

[0:57:35] Voice 7: about putting it in advance?

[0:57:37] Voice 7: If you put it in advance, does that mean they can still carry on because they still have

[0:57:43] Voice 7: I don't know if the application will still be open.

[0:57:47] Voice 7: I think it's very clear, of course, the direction that the staff are recommending, and I certainly

[0:57:55] Voice 7: hope that trustees follow the exact agreement.

[0:57:58] Voice 6: Okay. Thank you.

[0:58:00] Voice 6: Second time speaker, Carmina.

[0:58:02] Voice 4: Just a short question. Say that you obtained the funds for the business for next year.

[0:58:09] Voice 4: What happened if the trustee decided they don't want to do the review?

[0:58:14] Voice 4: What happened with that fund?

[0:58:17] Voice 6: It would go into the reserve and could be used for other projects.

[0:58:23] Voice 6: Anyone else?

[0:58:29] Voice 6: Alright, well thanks everybody.

[0:58:31] Voice 6: As always, Galliano is a really involved and really interested community.

[0:58:38] Voice 6: I think that's one of the things that made it really interesting at times challenging

[0:58:42] Voice 6: But never dull here to be your chair of this term. So thank you everyone

[0:58:49] Voice 6: So we're gonna move along to

[0:58:52] Voice 6: We've been through the reports. We've been through the active with the projects list

[0:59:02] Voice 6: That does bring us to section 16.

[0:59:05] Voice 2: Mr. Chair and I sir, I

[0:59:07] Voice 2: Apologize, Jillian just tapped me on the shoulder here. I'm Duncan Reid here from the Wise Island community

[0:59:13] Voice 2: Association okay I just want I thought you were having a discussion about the

[0:59:17] Voice 2: OCP and I just want to come I think we're coming to the West Island PC

[0:59:21] Voice 2: associated I'll

[0:59:22] Voice 6: see you soon project is coming up okay good I just want to

[0:59:25] Voice 6: confirm that I

[0:59:27] Voice 17: think we can speak

[0:59:29] Voice 17: well yeah

[0:59:32] Voice 6: if you want to speak to anything on

[0:59:34] Voice 6: the agenda that you are not an applicant for I don't know if we're considered an

[0:59:39] Voice 6: applicant you're not

[0:59:39] Voice 6: for the no no so if you got if you got something to say

[0:59:43] Voice 6: about that then

[0:59:44] Voice 2: I'll take that's very good so I will I will just say first of

[0:59:56] Voice 2: all and this really this really points it out here that this has been a

[1:00:00] Voice 2: collective effort over four four and a half years and i have an enormous appreciation for the talent

[1:00:07] Voice 2: and the time that has gone into this associated islands review the the community effort i mean

[1:00:12] Voice 2: it's almost a perfect case study uh it's really too too long perhaps in some ways for it to be

[1:00:18] Voice 2: four and a half years we started with the previous trustees who were very helpful and but then we're

[1:00:23] Voice 2: were limited by the election and then it's gone on from there but really the Wise Island community

[1:00:30] Voice 2: has been tremendously engaged as you know and they have come out on mass to a few different

[1:00:36] Voice 2: meetings I think this is my seventh or eighth meeting our colleague Diane Elson has been

[1:00:41] Voice 2: tremendously involved the trustees have been have been wonderful and very helpful and we've met with

[1:00:46] Voice 2: them numerous times as we develop our thinking around how do we deal with solar and and water

[1:00:53] Voice 2: access on smaller islands that are different than Galliano and looking at

[1:00:57] Voice 2: the different islands and understanding the issues in a really granular way it's

[1:01:01] Voice 2: been a wonderful it's been a wonderful process again a very long timeline but a

[1:01:05] Voice 2: wonderful process and then most recently with the referral to the APC and

[1:01:11] Voice 2: Chairwoman Dusting and her terrific committee who did a fantastic job I mean

[1:01:16] Voice 2: I can't I can't say enough about how detailed that work was and how

[1:01:20] Voice 2: thoughtful the process was and the questions and the discussion and just

[1:01:25] Voice 2: really an incredible process and I think they made a very clear recommendation to

[1:01:31] Voice 2: the trustees and obviously it's gone through first reading already and I

[1:01:35] Voice 2: think three issues were sent back to to the staff and here we are for second

[1:01:41] Voice 2: reading on this which is which is coming up for you so I'm really on behalf of

[1:01:48] Voice 2: with Wise Islanders. I mean, I think we're deeply appreciative of the incredible amount

[1:01:52] Voice 2: of time from all of those people across the last four and a half years and all the work

[1:01:57] Voice 2: that they've done. It's been tremendously impressive. And I think we're almost there.

[1:02:03] Voice 2: We're really just about there. Then you won't have to talk about Wise Islanders, hopefully,

[1:02:07] Voice 2: for a very long time. So we're down to just, I think, one issue where there is still some

[1:02:16] Voice 2: remaining concerns so that the issue that we're left with here uh of the three i won't i won't

[1:02:22] Voice 2: dwell on the other ones because i think the recommendations were good the staff recommendations

[1:02:25] Voice 2: were good and it's it's in your hands i think the one where we've still got a little bit of

[1:02:30] Voice 2: um friction or disagreement remain remaining is um the recommendation from from the abc and i

[1:02:40] Voice 2: understand i had a contract for the last meeting but jan house and said i think this was was the

[1:02:44] Voice 2: the flavor of the trustees as well, but I don't want to have that incorrect, is that

[1:02:50] Voice 2: the current proposal would still basically leave out structures that are existing structures

[1:02:58] Voice 2: that are there going back to when the Land Use By-law was passed in 2000, would still

[1:03:05] Voice 2: leave those exposed to future enforcement and review.

[1:03:10] Voice 2: view. The APC recommended that those effectively, those ones that are existing, because there's a

[1:03:16] Voice 2: very clear set of rules going forward that I think everyone has agreed on, and I don't think there's

[1:03:20] Voice 2: any more discussion on that, and that's fantastic, and there will be no more structures, you know,

[1:03:27] Voice 2: walkways and platforms and things that, in violation of the requirements of the new zone,

[1:03:34] Voice 2: which, or at least there should not be. But there are these other ones that go back to the year

[1:03:39] Voice 2: 2000 where anything before that is is effectively grandfathered in zoning promise but things since

[1:03:49] Voice 2: then would not be and so you've potentially got this risk still remaining of some of these walkways

[1:03:57] Voice 2: and things being subject to enforcement and then having another process where we've got enforcement

[1:04:02] Voice 2: enforcement, zoning, variance reviews, etc.

[1:04:06] Voice 2: And it wouldn't apply to anything from 26 Armaments because that framework is very clear.

[1:04:12] Voice 2: But we could wind up back here talking about someone's deck or walkway that was put in place in 2004

[1:04:19] Voice 2: and how that has to be taken out.

[1:04:21] Voice 2: And that I think would be, it's a tiny last detail on what has been a tremendous amount of work,

[1:04:28] Voice 2: but i think if we leave that in because the staff has recommended that that come up uh which is

[1:04:33] Voice 2: different than what the apc recommended what the wise island community association would uh would

[1:04:38] Voice 2: like to see and and hopefully i think what the what the trustees would like to see um which is

[1:04:45] Voice 2: that those be grandfathered going back to 2000 so that we don't have more enforcement on on those

[1:04:50] Voice 2: things going forward so that's uh that's the one piece where i think there's a difference of uh of

[1:04:56] Voice 2: views and I hope that we can resolve that so we really never have to talk

[1:05:00] Voice 2: about some of these things again because honestly otherwise this has been a

[1:05:04] Voice 2: really exemplary piece of community work I think to deal with a difficult issue

[1:05:08] Voice 2: around the solar and the standards and stuff and I'm deeply appreciative on

[1:05:12] Voice 2: behalf of Wise Islanders. My colleague Gert-Claire Roberts is here as well, I don't know if he has anything to add.

[1:05:18] Voice 1: No, I would reinforce what Duncan said is that the Wise Island Community

[1:05:22] Voice 1: association is very happy with this whole process um and uh thank all of you and the abc for all

[1:05:30] Voice 1: their work and we do have that one last issue that it sounds uh as though the apc was very

[1:05:35] Voice 1: strong on that and uh we support the abc's position and i would recommend that you uh

[1:05:41] Voice 1: follow their direction and not the direction of staff on this thank you

[1:05:45] Voice 6: thank you thank you

[1:05:47] Voice 6: i see you wanted to have one well i'm going to give you the last word and then we're going to

[1:05:51] Voice 6: go back to the agenda. Go ahead.

[1:05:54] Voice 16: This is in regards to the First Nations consultation on the Associated Islands file and on page 33 of the staff report, it says Halal First Nations expressed concern with cumulative impacts from the foreshore. Staff replied with further information regarding the project and the bylaw. Staff will follow up a second time with Halal First Nations prior to the August

[1:06:21] Voice 16: 25th LTC meeting to determine if concerns have been addressed i'm just wondering if that was done

[1:06:28] Voice 16: and if the concerns have been addressed through

[1:06:33] Voice 14: the chair yes um a second hold was sent to hello

[1:06:37] Voice 14: and no staff have not received any comments back okay

[1:06:46] Voice 6: well thanks again everyone and actually i'm

[1:06:49] Voice 6: going to take this opportunity um to echo a little bit of what i heard for the galliano

[1:06:56] Voice 6: area planning commission we as an LTC a couple of times have thrown some pretty

[1:07:03] Voice 6: big pieces of work and with some pretty short timelines and I want to thank

[1:07:11] Voice 6: Gillian and your team

[1:07:13] Voice 9: okay

[1:07:16] Voice 6: Art I know you were there and Jennifer you were there

[1:07:18] Voice 6: but truly like you guys have done an amazing job every time we've asked you

[1:07:25] Voice 6: do to pick up a piece of work i just want to appreciate that okay so we are going to move along

[1:07:34] Voice 6: um 16 starting on page 23 is uh the crystal mountain staff report and i'm gonna

[1:07:44] Voice 6: go over to uh planner sorry go ahead

[1:07:50] Voice 14: okay thank you thank you chair uh so the stock report is

[1:07:55] Voice 14: is to provide direction or a recommended motion to the LDC to consider closing the

[1:08:02] Voice 14: application, rezoning application filed GLRZ 2014.1 Crystal Mountain.

[1:08:11] Voice 14: The rezoning application began in 2014, although this is the second rezoning

[1:08:17] Voice 14: application. The first rezoning application was first applied back in

[1:08:22] Voice 14: in 2004 and was subsequently closed due to inactivity, I believe in 2012-2013, in which

[1:08:31] Voice 14: the applicant waited a year and then reapplied.

[1:08:34] Voice 14: Public hearing was held for both bylaws on May 6th of 2023, at which time at the December

[1:08:41] Voice 14: 10th, 2024, Galliano LTC meeting, the LTC asked the applicant to consider working with

[1:08:50] Voice 14: the Penelakut, with transferring that 75% of land.

[1:08:55] Voice 14: Sorry.

[1:08:56] Voice 14: That's it.

[1:08:57] Voice 14: I'll tell you that.

[1:08:58] Voice 6: Someone before you finished in a very timely manner.

[1:09:03] Voice 14: For the 75% of the land transfer, it's not going to the Conservancy, the consideration

[1:09:09] Voice 14: to the Penelakut tribe, and the applicant was to engage directly with the Penelakut.

[1:09:15] Voice 14: Staff did receive correspondence from the applicant back in 2025 stating that their

[1:09:22] Voice 14: rezoning committee had dissolved and they would spend a few weeks, if not a few months,

[1:09:27] Voice 14: putting together their rezoning committee.

[1:09:29] Voice 14: Citizen staff has not heard of any updates nor the LTC collectively have received updates

[1:09:36] Voice 14: from the applicant.

[1:09:37] Voice 14: On July 22nd of this year, staff sent a letter to the applicant requesting an update and

[1:09:45] Voice 14: also stating that staff is considering putting a motion forward to the LTC for closure of

[1:09:53] Voice 14: the application and recommended that it be come forward with a really strong rationale

[1:09:58] Voice 14: as to why the application should remain open.

[1:10:01] Voice 14: Staff did meet with the applicants last week.

[1:10:04] Voice 14: we discussed the letter that was sent in July. The applicants will speak to their

[1:10:12] Voice 14: progress in the last year or so. Staff did encourage again a letter drafted to

[1:10:18] Voice 14: the LTC clearly outlining a strong rationale as to why the application

[1:10:24] Voice 14: should remain open. From a letter that we received late last night, staff instilled the

[1:10:29] Voice 14: opinion that the application should be closed due to inactivity.

[1:10:35] Voice 14: The LTC does have other alternatives to consider.

[1:10:40] Voice 14: The LTC could hold the application in advance, and what that would mean is staff would no

[1:10:45] Voice 14: longer actively work on the application, but the applicants can still move forward on the

[1:10:50] Voice 14: work.

[1:10:52] Voice 14: The other alternative is for the LTC to simply receive the staff report as information, and

[1:10:59] Voice 14: we continue on as is. If the LTC is considering closing the application file, what would happen

[1:11:07] Voice 14: is that the application would be closed, and then bylaw enforcement would initiate.

[1:11:14] Voice 14: Staff would also put forward a motion that we should notify the delegate of the closure of the

[1:11:20] Voice 14: file. I should state that if the LTC does want to keep this application open, we are at the point

[1:11:28] Voice 14: where we would need some type of cost recovery because we have been working on

[1:11:34] Voice 14: this application for more than 10 plus years. Any type of secondary community

[1:11:40] Voice 14: information meeting or public hearing would be at the cost of the applicant. So

[1:11:45] Voice 14: there will be a secondary public hearing if this application were to continue. So

[1:11:50] Voice 14: I wanted to note that as well. And the applicant is here and I would hope the LDC would consider preparing for the applicant.

[1:11:59] Voice 6: Absolutely, so.

[1:12:02] Voice 11: Hi, my name is Arien Van Asselt. I'm speaking on behalf of Crystal Mountain.

[1:12:09] Voice 11: This application has been ongoing for a long time and it's complex and it's complex for a variety

[1:12:19] Voice 11: reasons and we keep kind of getting these new things thrown at us all the

[1:12:28] Voice 11: time. We have been moving forward since that last meeting but what seems to have

[1:12:40] Voice 11: happened is that all three parties were able to start communicating and then

[1:12:48] Voice 11: everybody backed off. It's not just Crystal Mountain that backed off. We also have a

[1:12:54] Voice 11: situation where we have new staff board members and truthfully said we weren't

[1:13:05] Voice 11: very good at getting the new committee up to speed. We got sidetracked on other things and that is

[1:13:15] Voice 11: part of what the delay is now the fact that that delay is a few months compared

[1:13:21] Voice 11: to this this last application is from 2014 but there was one before that it's

[1:13:28] Voice 11: actually a fairly short period of time we feel that this letter that we received

[1:13:39] Voice 11: from your planner came right in the middle of our summer retreat people

[1:13:48] Voice 11: people aren't checking their phones, we're not online, it's giving us very little time

[1:13:57] Voice 11: to provide for you the really strong rationale as to why to keep this.

[1:14:02] Voice 11: So this is, we're asking for time to be able to respond fully to this.

[1:14:09] Voice 11: This is us asking us for a bit more time to respond fully to this letter.

[1:14:23] Voice 11: The news now that we're going to incur even more costs to keep this going is news to us.

[1:14:34] Voice 11: We have spent over $100,000, or $150,000, we have spent a ton of money on this application.

[1:14:44] So that is unfair burden for us to carry.

[1:14:49] Voice 11: We're a small organization, we're a small charity, we do not have a lot of money.

[1:14:58] Voice 11: We really ask, we thank you for what you do.

[1:15:02] Voice 11: Now how you proceed with voting today, we want you to understand that there will be

[1:15:17] Voice 11: no hard feelings if you do terminate this application.

[1:15:21] Voice 11: We're not going to hold grudges on this.

[1:15:25] Voice 11: We feel that we're on the verge of providing something really substantial, a new zoning for Miami.

[1:15:36] Voice 11: I think that it deserves a bit more time, that's what we're asking for, just a bit more time.

[1:15:49] Voice 6: Okay, thank you.

[1:15:51] Voice 6: Trustees, questions for the planner or applicants?

[1:15:57] Voice 8: Well, my question is, I mean, I hear what you're saying.

[1:16:01] Voice 8: I remember this was the first public hearing I attended and we spoke to the progress that

[1:16:08] Voice 8: you'd made in your application.

[1:16:12] Voice 8: You know, it seemed like through the remainder of the term you struggled to really maintain

[1:16:19] Voice 8: that sort of dialogue with Connecticut to work on that part of the application.

[1:16:23] Voice 8: application. I get where you're coming from. To terminate today, I think, is premature.

[1:16:38] Voice 8: I would like us to defer this to the November meeting, but at some point, we need to see

[1:16:50] Voice 8: something concrete either one way or the other on this application, because I think we've

[1:16:56] Voice 8: been fairly patient going through the term. We would love to have seen progress

[1:17:03] Voice 8: made with the Penelicate and I would ask staff as well I mean I think we need to

[1:17:08] Voice 8: reach out to the Penelicate and let them know that this is this is the action

[1:17:12] Voice 8: taken and see if we get some feedback from them as well before the November

[1:17:16] Voice 8: meeting so that we're hearing from from both sides on on before we make a

[1:17:22] Voice 8: a decision. That's

[1:17:23] Voice 8: I think where I'm at.

[1:17:26] Voice 15: I feel similar as well. I think it's

[1:17:28] Voice 15: premature. I'm certainly not comfortable

[1:17:30] Voice 15: with closing this file

[1:17:32] Voice 15: at all today. I think

[1:17:34] Voice 15: we don't want to make any decisions.

[1:17:36] Voice 15: That's still rehearsal right now.

[1:17:42] Voice 15: Yeah, the applicant wrote the letter.

[1:17:44] Voice 15: They're asking for more time.

[1:17:45] Voice 15: They need legal assistance as well in making the decisions.

[1:17:49] Voice 15: They need time to restructure

[1:17:50] Voice 15: which they haven't had.

[1:17:52] Voice 15: And I don't see

[1:17:55] Voice 15: see it being problematic with giving them that time.

[1:17:57] Voice 15: I think there's great opportunity here for reconciliation as well, there's opportunity

[1:18:03] Voice 15: that I think that if we closed this file, we would never have as a community.

[1:18:07] Voice 15: I think we're in a very unique position here, so.

[1:18:12] Voice 15: I did have a question around the advance, it does say on page 76, open applications,

[1:18:17] Voice 15: applications and says that this is already in advance and that confuses me I'm not sure

[1:18:22] Voice 15: is

[1:18:23] Voice 14: that through the chair I think that's a same view scenario unfortunately so although it says

[1:18:30] Voice 14: advanced it is actually still with the LTC um so yes but based on whatever direction the LTC may

[1:18:38] Voice 14: get to stop today I'll ensure that the status of the application reflects that direction so

[1:18:45] Voice 6: So, just in terms of process, I'm hearing two trustees speaking in favor of deferral.

[1:18:56] Voice 6: So, would the sort of most straightforward thing be to request that staff bring this

[1:19:04] Voice 6: report back to the incoming LTC and then that new LTC could?

[1:19:10] Voice 6: and

[1:19:12] Voice 14: if i might add any specific direction to staff to reach out to penelak it should also

[1:19:17] Voice 14: be put in motion as well just so it's recorded the second motion yeah okay

[1:19:23] Voice 6: so um

[1:19:25] Voice 15: i just wanted

[1:19:25] Voice 15: to add the documents has asked us to put it to advance you could put it into advance until there

[1:19:32] Voice 15: is uh new information from the applicant that's

[1:19:38] Voice 8: certainly one option yeah i mean i think the

[1:19:42] Voice 8: trouble with just putting it in advance is we could end up just you know six months and eight

[1:19:47] Voice 8: months and nine months and you know it could just carry on i mean i think um you know we've done

[1:19:56] Voice 8: we've made great progress with the penelican on other applications we've we've done a lot during

[1:20:02] Voice 8: this term to um you know move forward applications collectively right and um so i think just putting

[1:20:12] Voice 8: it in advance is because you know i i want to see something a little bit more concrete than that

[1:20:18] Voice 8: moving forward right um you can always go to that meeting and you know if we we swing to the

[1:20:26] Voice 8: next meeting and nothing's happening um then you've got to consider whether there's there's

[1:20:31] Voice 8: you know sort of good faith involved right so that's that's kind of where i'm at i would like

[1:20:37] Voice 8: to see this you know i have no problem making a motion to defer this decision until the november

[1:20:41] Voice 8: meeting. I agree.

[1:20:48] Voice 8: So I move that the Galliano Island Trust Committee deferred

[1:20:51] Voice 8: decision on Crystal Mountain until the November meeting. I'll second

[1:20:56] Voice 6: the meeting motion.

[1:20:57] Voice 6: Seconded. Any further discussion? No. Not seeing any, I'll call the question. All those in

[1:21:03] Voice 6: favour? And that carries. And then I heard staff say that they would like a motion

[1:21:09] Voice 6: to communicate with an allocate. Yeah, I

[1:21:14] Voice 6: move that the

[1:21:15] Voice 8: Galliano Island Trust Committee

[1:21:17] Voice 8: may ask staff to contact them now like we're

[1:21:22] Voice 8: requiring the Crystal Mountain application for feedback as to a

[1:21:26] Voice 8: decision around closer of the application.

[1:21:30] Voice 15: Well because

[1:21:32] Voice 8: that's what we're talking

[1:21:33] Voice 8: about here we're getting to that point so Penelican needs to know at some

[1:21:37] Voice 8: point that we're we're looking at closing this application off and we want

[1:21:41] Voice 8: to know if they if they say no we're talking to the to the applicant again I

[1:21:47] Voice 8: mean the one thing that's that the panel could have been very clear about is bald mountain is

[1:21:51] Voice 8: sacred land and they would like to have that land back in their fold again and um i'm sure there's

[1:21:58] Voice 8: nothing new to you this isn't what i'm saying is nothing new it's just i think we we really owe it

[1:22:03] Voice 8: to them to uh to have a say in before we make a decision right i i just think we need to hear

[1:22:10] Voice 8: about them

[1:22:11] Voice 15: right and then and that communication that previous motion would be communicated as

[1:22:17] Voice 15: well but then we're going to be invited yes okay and i will second that motion okay

[1:22:22] Voice 6: and i just want

[1:22:23] Voice 6: to check with the planner since um our online connection dropped out there uh did you do did

[1:22:31] Voice 6: you get enough of a text about that's workable from your point of view oh sorry

[1:22:39] Voice 14: yes i thought

[1:22:39] Voice 14: you're talking to Lisa. Yes,

[1:22:40] Voice 6: I did. No, you. Okay. I've got

[1:22:42] Voice 14: my notes. Okay, you've got your notes. Yeah, just

[1:22:45] Voice 6: because I, you know, often I'd get Lisa to read it back to us. But, all right, so we've got moved and seconded. Any further discussion? No.

[1:22:54] Voice 6: I'll call the question. All those in favor? Okay, so that then brings us to item 17, which

[1:23:14] Voice 6: is the Associated Highlands Regulations Review Project, from workcleaners.gov.

[1:23:19] Voice 6: Thank

[1:23:20] Voice 14: you. So, this staff report is bringing back the amended proposed bylaw number 300

[1:23:28] Voice 14: that the LTC made changes to at the last LTC meeting on June 9th.

[1:23:34] Voice 14: The LTC also gave first reading to this by-law as amended.

[1:23:39] Voice 14: The by-law was non-contrary or at variance with the Iowa's Trust Policy Statement

[1:23:44] Voice 14: and also requested staff to look at options to further amend proposed by-law number 300.

[1:23:51] Voice 14: Staff also went through the APC recommendations in detail

[1:23:56] Voice 14: detail and put together a chart, and then they receive all the work that they did on that.

[1:24:04] Voice 14: So what I'll do is I'll go through each item of the chart that's on page 31 of the agenda,

[1:24:11] Voice 14: and that's page 3 of the staff report. So the first one there is the recommendation for a clear definition

[1:24:20] Voice 14: at the proposed structures. Again, the definition of DOC is supported, but in terms of other

[1:24:30] Voice 14: general definitions, generally we try not to put those in the by-law if the ordinary

[1:24:37] Voice 14: meaning is adequate, which generally the other ones are. So that's why we're just focusing

[1:24:42] Voice 14: on adding DOC to by-law 300, and I'll actually circle back to that definition at the very

[1:24:49] Voice 14: Second recommendation was in terms of further engagement with First Nations.

[1:24:57] Voice 14: Staff made the comment that there have been three separate documents sent to First Nations.

[1:25:02] Voice 14: Early engagement letter, as well as the draft bylaw in February of this year, and then again,

[1:25:08] Voice 14: the notice of first reading in May.

[1:25:12] Voice 14: Well, First Nation did reach out to staff, I believe in early July, and we have tried

[1:25:18] Voice 14: to get back to them twice and have heard, have not heard back from them as well. Staff will be

[1:25:26] Voice 14: following up with HALOT after this meeting just to let them know about any decisions CLTC.

[1:25:33] Voice 14: Third recommendation 3a is in regards to only permitting one solar array or a solar array

[1:25:43] Voice 14: array for those lots that do not have access to BC Hydro, and staff do support that recommendation.

[1:25:51] Voice 14: And there is a draft motion for the LTC to consider, and then bylaw 300 that would state

[1:26:02] Voice 14: that on a lot not serviced by BC Hydro, a solar panel array not exceeding four meters

[1:26:08] Voice 14: and height, and a total solar array service of 10 meters squared, the first thing is 5,000

[1:26:14] Voice 14: watts on which the structure is located.

[1:26:16] Voice 14: So really what this is meaning is, only on those lots that do not have access to BC Hydro,

[1:26:22] Voice 14: they are permitted to have the solar array structure, with those regulations, located

[1:26:28] Voice 14: within the setback of the natural boundary of the scene.

[1:26:32] Voice 14: Those properties that have access to BC Hydro, if they want to locate a solar array, they

[1:26:37] Voice 14: it would have to go through the process of a development variance permit or a court of

[1:26:40] Voice 14: variance.

[1:26:43] Voice 14: 3B, the ABC mentioned the consideration of alternative locations on the property, how

[1:26:52] Voice 14: do we address that.

[1:26:53] Voice 14: The Land Use By-law is a regulatory by-law, it isn't necessarily the mechanism to evaluate

[1:27:00] Voice 14: proper location of structures and buildings, really that's done through a development permit

[1:27:06] Voice 14: permit area and Galliano does have the shoreline and marine DPA and so locating of any structures

[1:27:16] Voice 14: and buildings within 15 meters of the natural boundary of the sea does trigger the guidelines

[1:27:22] Voice 14: to be addressed. There are some

[1:27:24] Voice 14: exemptions to this DPA but generally those structures must abide by

[1:27:29] Voice 14: these guidelines and that would take into consideration of location, is there a better

[1:27:34] Voice 14: location that would have less impact to a sensitive ecosystem. So that's

[1:27:41] Voice 14: really the tool to address that comment from APC and the LTC does have a DPA in place.

[1:27:48] Voice 14: 3C is to increase the surface of a solar array from four square meters to

[1:27:56] Voice 14: ten square meters. Staff supports this amendment and it's been included in the

[1:28:02] Voice 14: draft motion recommendation number four a um this is i think more just um getting the proper

[1:28:14] Voice 14: wording allowing a set of structures or a walkway and then staff says they do not recommend changing

[1:28:21] Voice 14: the term stairs or walkways to a set of stairs or to a walkway as the language used in the

[1:28:29] Voice 14: by-law for these terms is derived from the model land use by-law. And essentially when

[1:28:35] Voice 14: we're talking about allowing stairs within a setback to the natural boundary of the sea,

[1:28:40] Voice 14: it doesn't just have to be one direct stairway. Obviously stairs can sometimes have to be

[1:28:45] Voice 14: built the proper type of alignment. So within a set of stairs there's obviously going to

[1:28:51] Voice 14: be set of stairs, perhaps a landing set of stairs. The last item which I know is the

[1:28:56] Voice 14: the real big one, the big discussion of allowing these existing wooden structures of up to

[1:29:03] Voice 14: 30 meters squared. So the Land Use Fly Law 127 was adopted in March 1st of 2000 and that's

[1:29:16] Voice 14: when the regulation for the setback to the natural abounding of the sea was actually

[1:29:21] Voice 14: put in place. So any structures that were located in that setback before that date were committed

[1:29:30] Voice 14: and they are protected under the Local Government Act. The Local Government Act further states that

[1:29:39] Voice 14: these structures that are protected, built prior to March 1st 2000, they're able to be maintained

[1:29:46] Voice 14: and extended or altered as long as there would be no further

[1:29:50] Voice 14: contravention of the bylaw. But any structures that were built after the

[1:29:55] Voice 14: March 1st, 2008 should have complied.

[1:30:00] Voice 14: with the land use bylaw.

[1:30:02] Voice 14: And to date, SIL staff have not heard a strong rationale as to why those structures should be legalized through this process,

[1:30:11] Voice 14: because they shouldn't comply back in March 1st.

[1:30:15] Voice 14: And if a property owner can demonstrate a site-specific need,

[1:30:19] Voice 14: then the process through which they can legalize that is a variance permit or authority variance.

[1:30:26] Voice 14: And the 300 square meters is actually a really large structure within the foreshore, when we really start to talk about it.

[1:30:35] Voice 14: And I don't have the numbers of how many wooden structures, if the LTC were to consider legalizing these,

[1:30:44] Voice 14: I'm not sure how many those would be, but they're very, very large.

[1:30:47] Voice 14: And that does create quite an impact on the sensitive ecosystem.

[1:30:51] Voice 14: system. Not to mention, the LTC does think about utilizing these structures. The property

[1:30:58] Voice 14: owner still has to comply with the development permit area. So a deep peak is still being

[1:31:04] Voice 14: required. So staff still hasn't heard a strong rationale as to why these wooden structures

[1:31:11] Voice 14: should be permitted through this process. But if that's something that the LTC wants

[1:31:17] Voice 14: to further discussion on, you can have that. But to date, staff do not recommend adding that to the proposed bylaw.

[1:31:25] Voice 14: Going back to the DOC definition, I did hear that there was discussion about the province putting a new definition of DOC in one of their policies.

[1:31:38] Voice 14: I could not find that, so I tried. And I actually located two separate definitions of a DOC that the province had put forward

[1:31:46] Voice 14: on the same date, in two separate documents, and they were both different.

[1:31:50] Voice 14: So based on that alone, staff are recommending to retain the DOC definition that the Islands

[1:31:57] Voice 14: Trust uses.

[1:31:58] Voice 14: And not only that, the Islands Trust DOC definition is found within our land use by-law model,

[1:32:07] Voice 14: so it will be consistent throughout the land use by-laws, and also it's really applicable

[1:32:12] Voice 14: to Islands Trust specifically, because they're associated to the appellant, and they also

[1:32:19] Voice 14: allow for the use of a private moorage, whereas the definition for the DOC, in terms of the

[1:32:27] Voice 14: province's definition, is more of a province, a provincial context.

[1:32:36] Voice 14: So now moving into what are the next steps.

[1:32:39] Voice 14: steps. So with this process, a public hearing is not required. The LTC instead gave notice

[1:32:50] Voice 14: of first reading, so we've gone through that statutory requirement. Referrals have been

[1:32:56] Voice 14: sent to First Nations as well as agencies, and those have been included in the attached

[1:33:01] Voice 14: list staff report. So the LTC at this time, really your next steps are to consider further

[1:33:08] Voice 14: further amendments to the by-law, and then to consider a second and third reading.

[1:33:13] Voice 14: After that, the by-law would then go to the executive committee for consideration for approval,

[1:33:19] Voice 14: and since it's a land use by-law amendment and not an OCP,

[1:33:24] Voice 14: ministerial approval is not required, so it can come back to the LTC for approval.

[1:33:29] Voice 14: So I want to pause it there, but as I mentioned, staff have put together some draft motions

[1:33:35] Voice 14: that include those recommended amendments. Those are adding the definition of DOC, and

[1:33:43] Voice 14: changing one of the regulations in terms of the sum of panels to specifically only apply

[1:33:49] Voice 14: to those lots not serviced by DC Hydro. Then there's a second motion there, a second, give

[1:33:57] Voice 14: a second reading as amended, a third reading, and then forward the file to the Executive

[1:34:11] Voice 8: I do have a question. I have a question for the chair of the APC.

[1:34:15] Voice 8: I'm interested in the rationale of making the recommendation to basically grandfather the structures from 2002, the time we got.

[1:34:28] Voice 17: I think one of the things that we thought about is that the demolition of the existing structures

[1:34:33] Voice 17: might be more environmentally detrimental than leaving them intact.

[1:34:39] Voice 17: Can

[1:34:43] Voice 2: I just add one correction here? We're not aware of any cabin structures built since 2000

[1:34:50] Voice 2: in the setback zones. So that may be the case on other islands. We're not aware of any on Wise

[1:34:55] Voice 2: Island. What we're talking about are access docks, access decks and pathways and things like that.

[1:35:01] Voice 2: So I just wanted to, because the 300 square feet thing seemed potentially misleading because we're

[1:35:05] Voice 2: We're not aware of a single one of those constructed on Wyzant since 2000.

[1:35:11] Voice 8: So my next question would be to staff is what would be the rationale that you would need to see to leave those structures?

[1:35:21] Voice 14: Yeah, so really the rationale is that does it, if not having them in place, does it impact their safety or well-being?

[1:35:31] Voice 14: Is this something that is essential to the health and safety of the lot?

[1:35:37] Voice 14: And understandably so, a private dock is certainly necessary to access the porch, or certainly

[1:35:42] Voice 14: stairs are appropriate for emergency situations, getting your goods from your private dock

[1:35:49] Voice 14: up to your property.

[1:35:51] Voice 14: But a landing or a structure of 30 square meters, I still haven't heard a strong rationale.

[1:35:59] Voice 14: I did hear at one point that this is for storing goods, temporary storage, but you could also

[1:36:04] Voice 14: a temporary store you could um you know one part of the dock a part of the landing going

[1:36:09] Voice 14: back to the stairway yeah

[1:36:15] Voice 2: so somebody might want to of course question that again i just

[1:36:18] Voice 2: want to point out there's a difference of facts on the ground here there are only four or five

[1:36:21] Voice 2: private docs of mys island the rest of everyone else uses the community docs all of those have

[1:36:27] Voice 2: their both the private docs and the public docs have their own approvals and for sure releases

[1:36:32] Voice 2: and all the stuff that's in place for that which is a different regime not at issue here but those

[1:36:38] Voice 2: are all those are all not within the scope of this because they're basically covered already

[1:36:42] Voice 2: they've already got their permits and

[1:36:48] Voice 14: from my through the chair from my understanding these

[1:36:50] Voice 14: are essentially decks private use decks within the foreshore area that could be potentially

[1:36:57] Voice 14: legalized and those could be up to 300 feet squared that is a massive structure it's around

[1:37:04] Voice 6: 18 by 18. pre-existing

[1:37:07] Voice 15: feelings that that's not a minor structure in the minor project

[1:37:11] Voice 15: that's sort of a major structure. I wouldn't be in favor of granting that.

[1:37:20] Voice 8: Yeah, no, I'm asking questions here because this is the one point of contention that we're working on here.

[1:37:26] Voice 8: I think we

[1:37:26] Voice 8: pretty much got mostly through this process and now there's this one sort of discrepancy between the APC,

[1:37:33] Voice 8: which, you know, a lot of the good work that was done in getting to the point where now was with the help of the APC

[1:37:39] Voice 8: and why the ABC had a different stance on this than staff did.

[1:37:45] Voice 8: So, I mean, whether we're in favor of approving them or not,

[1:37:53] Voice 8: I mean, I think it might be helpful to have some more,

[1:37:56] Voice 8: a little bit more work done just on that portion of this.

[1:37:59] Voice 8: But I don't know how that would affect what we're doing here today

[1:38:04] Voice 8: because I'd still like to proceed with what we've accomplished so far.

[1:38:11] Voice 8: So, maybe, that was probably a question for staff.

[1:38:15] Voice 14: Stick with us. We want to move forward.

[1:38:18] Voice 14: I mean, really, we can't move forward with the project because this is still a major aspect of the project.

[1:38:24] Voice 15: So,

[1:38:24] Voice 14: I wouldn't recommend giving any further readings.

[1:38:27] Voice 14: It feels though you still need more information to make further amendments to the bylaw.

[1:38:34] Voice 6: I mean, it just occurs to me what we don't have and it would, I mean,

[1:38:40] Voice 6: potentially could be quite a project is how many of these structures are there that are

[1:38:46] Voice 6: non-conforming, how big are they all, what is the scope, what is the scale that we're

[1:38:52] Voice 6: talking here and you know this committee doesn't have that kind of facts in front of us.

[1:38:59] Voice 6: I mean I think the thing that mitigates for me is that there is the possibility of applying

[1:39:08] Voice 6: for a variance permit if there are these structures that are built in that time frame so that

[1:39:17] Voice 6: it's not necessarily prohibiting any and all in terms of being able to apply for variance.

[1:39:29] Voice 6: I agree.

[1:39:31] Voice 6: I mean, there's two ways to go about it.

[1:39:34] Voice 6: One is to be permissive of structures that were built in a time frame where they were

[1:39:41] Voice 6: illegal and to allow them to remain and also be maintained and repaired and essentially

[1:39:50] Voice 6: almost perpetuated broadly and all of them.

[1:39:55] Voice 6: And the other would be to be more restrictive and essentially require that people who want

[1:40:04] Voice 6: to keep those would need to apply to to keep them and that's sort of the main two things

[1:40:08] Voice 6: i don't think realistically i don't think it's it's uh it's probably not economic

[1:40:16] Voice 6: for the local trust committee to uh send out a team to go and hunt down any and all non-compliant

[1:40:25] Voice 6: structures and bring back a report i mean i just i don't even see that that's terribly valuable

[1:40:32] Voice 6: use of time or money. I mean, that's my perspective, so I just wanted to share that.

[1:40:38] Voice 6: Thank

[1:40:39] Voice 14: you. Going back to the file enforcement staff report that Warren Digman put together for the Galleon OTC,

[1:40:50] Voice 14: the background states that Wise Island has a total of six open files for the siting of structures within the acquired setback area from the natural boundary of the sea.

[1:40:59] Voice 14: So really this could potentially, I don't know exactly the content or context of those six styles, I imagine a good handful of them are in regards to, sorry, those existing wooden structures that are out to be a meter squared.

[1:41:16] Voice 14: So really this could impact potentially up to six lobs.

[1:41:20] Voice 6: On Wise Island.

[1:41:21] Voice 14: On Wise Island.

[1:41:22] Voice 14: But

[1:41:22] Voice 6: there's obviously potentially more of them.

[1:41:27] Voice 14: Exactly.

[1:41:27] Voice 14: So,

[1:41:28] Voice 6: we don't really have that information.

[1:41:30] Voice 14: And there will be more in the future.

[1:41:33] Voice 2: No, no, no, that's the whole point, this is only backward looking.

[1:41:38] Voice 2: Yeah,

[1:41:39] Voice 6: and I guess,

[1:41:39] Voice 2: so I'm just going to ask you not to interject unless I...

[1:41:44] Voice 2: Understood.

[1:41:45] Voice 6: I think

[1:41:46] Voice 2: it's a really important point.

[1:41:49] Voice 2: And what

[1:41:50] Voice 14: would be the rationale to legalize these safe structures,

[1:41:54] Voice 14: structures, or potentially other structures, that were built illegally in the last 25 years.

[1:42:01] Voice 14: What is the real rationale?

[1:42:03] Voice 14: Planning staff, as a planner myself, I have a hard time coming up with a strong rationale.

[1:42:08] Voice 14: This is why I think we need to look at each case individually, and the process of that

[1:42:12] Voice 14: is through a development variance permit.

[1:42:14] Voice 14: And then it still gives the option to the applicant, the property owner, to legalize

[1:42:20] Voice 14: the structure through a variance current but look at strictly through the lens of that structure and

[1:42:25] Voice 14: uh why it should be located within that area no

[1:42:31] Voice 6: i mean i understand i understand that rationale

[1:42:34] Voice 6: from the from the planning perspective and from you know why have a bylaw if they don't mean

[1:42:40] Voice 6: anything um trustees where because i mean this seems

[1:42:46] Voice 8: like this seems like the real question

[1:42:48] Voice 8: we're asking here is do we delay this whole process or not and I'm reluctant to delay the

[1:42:55] Voice 8: process I'm sorry that's that's a reality because I think we've done some really good work up to now

[1:43:00] Voice 8: I do I do recognize what the chair of the APC is saying right and I understand that but

[1:43:11] Voice 8: But, you know, today we have an opportunity to approve where we're at and send it to the minister.

[1:43:21] Voice 8: And it's not closing off entirely the path to approval of these structures.

[1:43:30] Voice 8: It's not the desired path, probably for the owners, but it's a path.

[1:43:40] Voice 8: If we had associated items here, we could just say, hey, you want us to delay and work

[1:43:45] Voice 8: through this or you want us to do that.

[1:43:48] Voice 8: So I mean, that's where I'm at and I mean, it's, I mean, it seems like it's kind of irrelevant

[1:43:53] Voice 8: because we've had two people here say this, we're not going to, we're not going to approve

[1:43:59] Voice 8: structures passed from 2000 to now.

[1:44:02] Voice 8: So yeah, so that's where we're at, right?

[1:44:05] Voice 8: Right. So in light of that, in light of the fact that we have two votes at the table that have already said that, I'd be willing to...

[1:44:14] Voice 8: I

[1:44:14] Voice 15: just wanted to raise the issue around the HALOP nations. We have been following up with them.

[1:44:20] Voice 15: They're concerned with what's about cable and specs within the brochure.

[1:44:26] Voice 15: And a lot of what I think would be kind of the guardrails are the development variance part, more the variance.

[1:44:33] Voice 15: audience so I don't feel like we are sidestepping them by by making these motions today I think that

[1:44:41] Voice 15: staff when you follow up with them that that is a good strong rationale for why we've moved over

[1:44:47] Voice 15: before um hearing back to them it says very clearly that we we're going to follow up with

[1:44:55] Voice 15: them and bring that it looks like we're not doing that but that was a consideration in the rationale

[1:45:00] Voice 15: out for sure that's it thank you then yeah absolutely okay so

[1:45:09] Voice 6: it sounds like we're coming

[1:45:11] Voice 6: close to at least proposing motions yeah let's

[1:45:19] Voice 6: proceed uh

[1:45:23] Voice 15: i move that the galliano local trust

[1:45:25] Voice 15: committee bylaw number 300 cited as the galliana land use bylaw number 127 1999 amendment number

[1:45:34] Voice 15: Number 1, 2026, so B, amended by A, adding a new subsection, under subsection 2.4, that reads,

[1:45:42] Voice 15: Part 17, down to interpretation, by adding the following new definition,

[1:45:48] Voice 15: dock means a structure or a set of structures, accessory to the residential or agricultural use of the upland lot,

[1:45:56] Voice 15: and may consist of a pier, ramp, and float, constructed on or over the water that is connected to the shore,

[1:46:03] Voice 15: and that it is used for the purpose of mooring private boats and for providing

[1:46:07] Voice 15: pedestrian access to and from the moored boats. B deleting the following section

[1:46:13] Voice 15: from 2.1 solar panel arrays for the purpose of supplying power to the lot on

[1:46:20] Voice 15: which the structure is located must not exceed 4 meters in height and total

[1:46:24] Voice 15: solar array of 5 square meters and replaced with on a lot not

[1:46:31] Voice 15: not serviced by DC Hydro, a solar panel array not exceeding 4 meters in height, and a total

[1:46:38] Voice 15: solar array surface of 10 square meters for the purpose of supplying power to the lot

[1:46:43] Voice 15: on which the structure is located.

[1:46:45] Voice 6: Move.

[1:46:46] Voice 6: Yeah, I'll second the motion.

[1:46:47] Voice 6: Seconded.

[1:46:48] Voice 6: Further discussion?

[1:46:50] Voice 6: No.

[1:46:50] Voice 6: Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[1:46:52] Voice 6: All those in favor?

[1:46:53] Voice 6: And that carries.

[1:46:55] Voice 8: I move that the Galliano Island Local Trust Committee By-law number 300 cited as Galliano

[1:46:59] Voice 8: Galeano Island Land Use By-law Number 127-1999, Amendment Number 1-2026, be read a second

[1:47:06] Voice 8: time as amended.

[1:47:08] Voice 6: Moved and seconded.

[1:47:09] Voice 6: Any discussion?

[1:47:11] Voice 6: I'll call the question.

[1:47:12] Voice 6: All those in favor?

[1:47:13] Voice 6: The motion carries.

[1:47:14] Voice 15: I move that Galeano Local Trust Committee By-law Number 300, cited as Galeano Land Use

[1:47:19] Voice 15: By-law Number 127-1999, Amendment Number 1-2026, be read a third time.

[1:47:26] Voice 6: Seconded.

[1:47:27] Voice 6: Seconded.

[1:47:27] Voice 6: any discussion all those in favor that carries

[1:47:32] Voice 8: I move that the galliano island local trust

[1:47:35] Voice 8: committee proposed bylaw number 300 be forward to the secretary of the islands trust for executive

[1:47:39] Voice 8: committee for approval moved

[1:47:43] Voice 6: and seconded any discussion i'll call the question all those in

[1:47:47] Voice 6: favor and that carries okay that then to the report section so starting on page 70 we have

[1:48:07] Voice 6: the active projects report look to staff see if there's anything like a highlight there today

[1:48:19] Voice 14: no not at this time

[1:48:20] Voice 11: trustees

[1:48:23] Voice 11: we

[1:48:24] Voice 14: do have the business case are we going to have a new business i'm assuming rather than

[1:48:29] Voice 14: ltc projects yeah okay anything

[1:48:37] Voice 6: on the future uh projects report uh we have the application

[1:48:45] Voice 6: Publications report on page 73, is there anything additional on that?

[1:48:52] Voice 6: Trustee Local Expense report for information and the Adopted Policies and Standing Resolutions

[1:48:59] Voice 6: report on page 80.

[1:49:02] Voice 6: Anything about the Local Trust Committee web page from anyone?

[1:49:05] Voice 6: No.

[1:49:07] Voice 6: And we have no Island Trust Conservancy report, so that's...

[1:49:11] Voice 6: I have something.

[1:49:12] Voice 6: Okay.

[1:49:13] Voice 6: Bring it, Chair.

[1:49:15] Voice 15: Thank you.

[1:49:16] Voice 15: as chair of the Alley Trust Conservancy, it is my absolute pleasure to announce that the

[1:49:21] Voice 15: province has approved one-year reappointments for Trustee Jurgensen and for Trustee Smith.

[1:49:28] Voice 15: Trustee Jurgensen's appointment has been extended through July 21st,

[1:49:32] Voice 15: 2027 and Trustee Smith's appointment will extend through August 21st.

[1:49:39] Voice 15: This will mark Dr. Smith's sixth year serving as ITC Trustee.

[1:49:47] Voice 15: There is a third provincial appointee member on our board, our Vice-Chair Vancom, and his

[1:49:55] Voice 15: term will extend into August 21st, 2027, so those are our provincial appointees.

[1:50:03] Voice 15: the other three board members at the end of the term will see a new slate there,

[1:50:09] Voice 15: so I'm pretty happy to say that we have some continuity with some fantastic board members.

[1:50:16] Voice 15: I just wanted to add that serving on the ITC board has been some of the most rewarding and

[1:50:21] Voice 15: fulfilling work, and I'm sad to leave. I will be a lifelong supporter of the Atlas Trust Conservancy,

[1:50:28] Voice 15: My thanks to my fellow board members and to the excellent staff at ITC.

[1:50:34] Voice 15: I'd like to thank them for making a truly memorable experience.

[1:50:38] Voice 6: Well, thank you for that.

[1:50:40] Voice 6: And that

[1:50:41] Voice 6: is good news. It's good to have some continuity on the board, that's for sure.

[1:50:47] Voice 6: Okay, so for new business, we do have the item in the addendum.

[1:50:54] Voice 6: And I will turn it over to Leonard Stockdale to introduce.

[1:50:57] Voice 14: It's a pleasure. Regional Planning Manager Mary Storzer joining us by Zoom to go over the business space.

[1:51:06] Voice 6: All right. Well, we will find out in fact if that will work.

[1:51:12] Voice 6: Go ahead, RPM Storzer.

[1:51:17] Voice 6: Oh, and I'm going to have to, because we have the way we are set up, we're going to have to hear you through my computer.

[1:51:25] Voice 6: I'm not sure how great that's going to be, but we're going to try.

[1:51:27] Voice 6: Is it operational? I can hear you. Go ahead.

[1:51:36] Voice 3: For $35,000 for next fiscal year, please do ignore the typo on the first page where I think it says 55 in one of the corners. We'll get that fixed.

[1:52:09] Voice 3: You are seeing this now, I think we had some discussion about this last time, but because

[1:52:14] Voice 3: we are actively underway for the budget planning 2027-2028, as the way that the Islands Trust

[1:52:21] works, and what I wanted to say is this is being proposed as a comprehensive review that

[1:52:29] would look

[1:52:29] Voice 3: across the whole Official Committee plan and update both it as well as the land

[1:52:35] Voice 3: use bylaw and that's creating some efficiencies for ourselves. This business case will look a

[1:52:42] Voice 3: little different I think from the one that you had approved last year. As recently we've been doing

[1:52:47] Voice 3: some work internally with the regional planning team and that team has been looking at how to

[1:52:53] Voice 3: improve the work that we manage and deliver. We are responsible as a team to deliver major policy

[1:53:00] Voice 3: in regulatory projects, and that means official community plans and land use bylaws, comprehensive

[1:53:06] Voice 3: updates in order to meet trust council policies 5.9.1, which establishes the goal that OCPs

[1:53:14] Voice 3: and LUBs are systematically updated on a regular basis.

[1:53:19] Voice 3: Internally, we've been talking about, because there are quite a number of them, as you can,

[1:53:22] Voice 3: I'm sure, imagine, what that cycle can look like and how can we make those happen.

[1:53:30] Voice 3: And we've been looking at about 10 to 15 years in terms of how many there are in the cycle of turnover.

[1:53:36] Voice 3: And so what we've been looking at is adopting a structure and functional organization for our team that works towards more standardized,

[1:53:44] Voice 3: coordinated, collaborative and best practice approaches that can really speak to all the needs that we have here in the islands around environmental protection,

[1:53:54] protection, response to community priorities, and incorporating meaningfully the

[1:53:59] Voice 3: interests

[1:54:00] Voice 3: of Indigenous governing bodies across the whole federation.

[1:54:04] Voice 3: And what we are, by policy, asked to do is to look across the several criteria called

[1:54:11] Voice 3: the OCP Health Checklist to look at things like age of the documents, population growth,

[1:54:19] Voice 3: some of the other considerations we're looking at when we're looking at the priority of OCPs.

[1:54:23] Voice 3: is a priority from the Conservancy's perspective and some of the strategic alignment with some

[1:54:28] Voice 3: of the other work, for example, Indigenous Relations work, and Galliano has been determined

[1:54:34] Voice 3: as being a priority for this work by that team, and so I thought it might be helpful

[1:54:40] Voice 3: though to just then talk a little bit out of all that work to look at which OCPs and

[1:54:47] Voice 3: such, there are some differences that you might see and I'll just pull those out for

[1:54:53] Voice 3: you. So basically what we're looking at is a generally speaking sort of a three-year body of

[1:54:59] Voice 3: work when we update these OCP and LUVs and that initial year for this work for Galliano specifically

[1:55:06] Voice 3: is dedicated to building our understanding of the interests that the indigenous government bodies

[1:55:13] Voice 3: have in relation to the areas held within health as part of the local trust areas and this work is

[1:55:21] Voice 3: is proposed be to be undertaken concurrently with some of the work with other nations across

[1:55:28] Voice 3: across the southern island so we are also doing or proposing this work with

[1:55:32] Voice 3: under the salt spring island official community plan so there will be efficiencies as we speak

[1:55:38] Voice 3: with each nation hopefully we can gather their interests across their all their territories and

[1:55:42] Voice 3: the the related local trust areas that we that we work with and so that's one thing that that's

[1:55:50] Voice 3: That's $10,000 we're asking for that, that would go towards helping Indigenous government

[1:55:56] Voice 3: making bodies participate in the process with us.

[1:55:59] The second thing you will see there is the $25,000 for doing what we'll be calling

[1:56:06] fresh water footprint work.

[1:56:08] This has been really important technical information that we receive in order to conduct planning.

[1:56:15] Voice 3: We've tested this through the RIOLA OCP process and basically it is actually implementing

[1:56:23] Voice 3: the fresh water sustainability strategy by using this fresh water footprint sizing scale

[1:56:30] methodology for measuring the sustainability of island water.

[1:56:35] So that's another element you'll see in this for the request for this fiscal year and you

[1:56:40] You may also see,

[1:56:40] Voice 3: have some questions about the second and third proposal.

[1:56:55] Voice 3: Mary,

[1:56:55] Voice 6: we lost you for a moment there.

[1:57:00] Voice 6: Second and third.

[1:57:01] Voice 6: Second and third year.

[1:57:03] Voice 3: Okay.

[1:57:04] Voice 6: And

[1:57:21] Voice 3: so basically what we've been doing is each official doing.

[1:57:30] Voice 3: So this latest one from Gabriela.

[1:57:32] Voice 3: And what we've done is we've estimated out the cost with some consideration of what's needed.

[1:57:37] Voice 3: For example, we know that we'll need 10,000 to complete the freshwater footprint work in year two for Galliano.

[1:57:46] Voice 3: So some of it is specific to Galliano.

[1:57:48] Voice 3: Then for other ones, we've estimated some of the costs related to the work that we understand has been working really well around community engagement,

[1:57:56] where we need legal, some of the technical data and analysis.

[1:58:01] and like there is some fluctuation potentially when we come back year after year because

[1:58:07] we'll have done a little bit more research maybe into some of the data so I know in year

[1:58:12] two I think we have $40,000 notionally for data and analysis that's basically to help

[1:58:18] us understand that we may need to do some of that to do some good work on Galliana.

[1:58:24] Voice 3: So yeah so that's basically a summary of some of the differences and what's been going on

[1:58:29] Voice 3: a little bit internally but yes this is a business case for your for your hopefully your approval

[1:58:34] Voice 3: what would happen next is we would be forwarding this on to um uh the relevant committees that

[1:58:39] link goes to regional planning committee uh next and then through to trust council who would be

[1:58:43] ultimately the one approving the budget so uh the recommendation we have for you is that the

[1:58:48] galliano uh local trust committee endorsed the attachment in this case for the ocp review project

[1:58:54] and that staff forward that business case to the relevant committees

[1:58:57] Voice 3: and to trust council

[1:58:57] Voice 3: so thank you so much thank you

[1:59:00] Voice 6: thank you trustees any questions questions

[1:59:05] Voice 15: no thank you for pointing

[1:59:06] Voice 15: out the typo on page one i spent a little bit of time doing that doesn't matter i'm sorry

[1:59:13] Voice 15: thank you for that i thought my math a lot um for me i think this is an important thing that

[1:59:19] Voice 15: we passed today i think that we need to launch our ocp review we are overdue for

[1:59:26] Voice 15: or a OCP review.

[1:59:28] Voice 15: I know we meant to have a targeted one

[1:59:31] Voice 15: at the beginning of our term and that was denied.

[1:59:33] Voice 15: A full review would have been, for me, the preference.

[1:59:38] Voice 15: But it wasn't in the budget.

[1:59:39] Voice 15: But seeing how now that there's will from,

[1:59:42] Voice 15: and time and capacity from planning services to do this,

[1:59:45] Voice 15: and I've asked Director Cermak specifically,

[1:59:49] Voice 15: will County Antle be able to get this reviewed?

[1:59:51] Voice 15: He said that they have the capacity to do this.

[1:59:55] Voice 15: and that we've heard that it's a priority and I think I think that we should move forward on it.

[2:00:00] Voice 15: this. We're not saying that this is the review you're going to get. We're opening the door for

[2:00:06] Voice 15: me to launch. We need to pull it into this budget cycle. We have until September 7th or something

[2:00:13] Voice 15: like that to get business cases in, which most of the different departments, they're putting their

[2:00:18] Voice 15: business cases forward now. We're not behind in anything with this business case. We're just right

[2:00:23] Voice 15: on time to get this business case in so that we can discuss it at council. So I'm in favor of

[2:00:30] Voice 15: recommendation and are you prepared to make the motion thank

[2:00:35] Voice 8: you uh trustee maybelline um so

[2:00:38] Voice 8: a couple of different things um we've asked for an ocp review before we were turned down

[2:00:45] Voice 8: by the budget um i just want to you know as we move forward with this process whether we

[2:00:51] Voice 8: approve this today or not um i think we have to be very aware of what we're hearing from the public

[2:01:00] Voice 8: right I mean we heard it again today um you know I was I was sort of smiling when

[2:01:08] Voice 8: the chair of the ACA ABC was talking about um you know the OCP review and and echoing

[2:01:16] Voice 8: a lot of the comments that I've been making in the trust policy statement is you know just this

[2:01:22] Voice 8: this lack of public engagement this lack of sort of you know we tend to I think

[2:01:33] Voice 8: as as staff and I'm not being critical of staff at all but we tend to want to

[2:01:39] Voice 8: move things forward before they're ready to move forward right and and that's

[2:01:45] Voice 8: always a mistake right there's it generally always is a mistake I can see

[2:01:51] Voice 8: the merit in going, okay, let's see what the new trustees, when they get in, want to do.

[2:02:00] Voice 8: If we think that 2028 is a long ways away, anybody who's been a trustee realizes that

[2:02:07] Voice 8: that's not true. First, the time flies by, right? And so putting a business case in 2028

[2:02:15] Voice 8: is also not a big detriment to the process, right?

[2:02:21] Voice 8: But it's not like we haven't been talking about this.

[2:02:24] Voice 8: We have been talking about moving forward an OCP review.

[2:02:27] Voice 8: And if we don't get our business cases in,

[2:02:30] Voice 8: then we're telling everybody in the future,

[2:02:33] Voice 8: we're not talking about this again until 2028.

[2:02:36] Voice 8: That's just a reality, right?

[2:02:38] Voice 8: We can do whatever we want, but the planning happens,

[2:02:42] Voice 8: you know, the business case happens to go on 2028.

[2:02:44] Voice 8: it. So I'm not actually opposed to moving the business case forward, but I do want to caution

[2:02:51] Voice 8: that how we do it is so important because we no longer are doing this by ourselves.

[2:02:57] Voice 8: The Padillacan Nation are now involved on Galliano, and because of this LTC and applications

[2:03:05] Voice 8: that we've done through our term, they're more involved on Galliano than probably on most other

[2:03:11] Voice 8: islands in the trust area and we have to be really cognizant of that when we

[2:03:17] Voice 8: draft our plans on how we're going to engage I looked at the number of ten

[2:03:21] Voice 8: thousand dollars to engage with the panel again I'm going boy that's

[2:03:24] Voice 8: ridiculously low right and and so I just echoing concerns I'm echoing right I'm

[2:03:32] Voice 8: just I'm just saying what's on my mind I'm always you know I'm a fisherman in a

[2:03:38] Voice 8: water by trade but if you're going to build a rope don't build it out of three

[2:03:42] Voice 8: strands

[2:03:42] Voice 9: build

[2:03:43] Voice 8: it out of a hundred strands because it's going to be way

[2:03:46] Voice 8: stronger right no that's how you that's how you build something worthwhile as

[2:03:51] Voice 8: you you include everybody and and so if we move forward which I'm hearing that

[2:03:59] Voice 8: you want to do with the business case then I'm hoping staff is hearing you

[2:04:07] Voice 8: know what the public have been saying and especially what the public have been saying about

[2:04:12] Voice 8: the the trust policy statement process which is in no way a certain that it's going to be approved i

[2:04:21] Voice 8: would say the odds are it is not going to be moved forward by the next trust council right and so

[2:04:28] Voice 8: you know that's a that's a really sort of hard lesson for everybody to learn because a tremendous

[2:04:33] Voice 8: tremendous amount of money has been spent on that process, and just to have it fall

[2:04:38] Voice 8: off the shelf is a shame.

[2:04:40] Voice 8: And I think a lot of that was around the lack of how Indigenous consultation was done and

[2:04:46] Voice 8: how it was, you know, adapted into the process.

[2:04:50] Voice 8: And so when we go forward with an OCB review on Galliano, we just have to be so aware of

[2:04:57] Voice 8: that because we have fundamentally changed the way that deals the galliano island ltcs will do

[2:05:03] Voice 8: business with the penelope in the future and so those are those are just my comments and just

[2:05:09] Voice 8: comments i um like i say i don't think we're putting the cart before the horse to pass this

[2:05:15] Voice 8: motion you know to approve putting for i don't think we're doing that all we're doing is we're

[2:05:20] Voice 8: allowing the next LTC to look at its options, to listen to the public, and then just to see what,

[2:05:30] Voice 8: you know, where they want us to go, right?

[2:05:34] Voice 15: Yep, I agree with everything that you said. I totally agree. We have started an amazing opportunity with Conallocate. Our OCP review is going to look like we've never seen it before. It's such opportunity.

[2:05:49] Voice 15: community. Let's shoot for the stars here, right? I also think there's also a legislative driver.

[2:05:55] Voice 15: We haven't had a OCP review in over 20 years. A lot has changed, and there's the saying,

[2:06:03] Voice 15: plan or be planned. We need to keep up with what's happening out there. So a 20-year housing

[2:06:09] Voice 15: strategy, new direction, our OCP doesn't consider any of that. Updated greenhouse gas targets,

[2:06:16] Voice 15: There's climate change, there's a lot of stuff we need to bring in and have conversations

[2:06:21] Voice 15: as a community to decide what are our overarching broader views and values and put that in our

[2:06:28] Voice 15: OCP.

[2:06:29] Voice 15: We get to do that.

[2:06:32] Voice 6: Yeah, I just want to make two short comments.

[2:06:36] Voice 6: One is that if there's a feeling that the initial $10,000 for the first round for First Nations capacity funding isn't enough,

[2:06:49] Voice 6: you could amend that or pass it.

[2:06:54] Voice 6: And then the other piece is I heard from various members of the Galeano community here

[2:07:01] Voice 6: something that's very familiar to me which is the desire that working groups

[2:07:08] Voice 6: or local committees or however you want to define it get together and do a lot

[2:07:15] Voice 6: of the work and I know that from the perspective of an organization like the

[2:07:21] Voice 6: Islands Trust that's not how we do things however there you can't be

[2:07:27] Voice 6: stopped from doing that. I went through this on my island, right? And what we experienced

[2:07:40] Voice 6: was that there was a lot of reluctance for our community association to strike an OCP

[2:07:47] Voice 6: steering committee and do a whole bunch of work, a whole bunch of community work. And

[2:07:56] Voice 6: The tune changed and everybody, including our local chair and the chair of trust council and staff, well isn't this great? This huge amount of community consultation has happened within the community that we never would have been able to fund through that normal procedure.

[2:08:18] Voice 6: So I just want to I just want to share that with obviously some really committed community members here

[2:08:25] Voice 6: Plan to do the work plan to have those committees

[2:08:28] Voice 6: You don't need the pretty permission of the local trust committee or Islands trust to do that work

[2:08:35] Voice 6: There's nothing to stop you doing the work and and putting the time in and submitting that

[2:08:40] Voice 6: That your findings to the local trust committee of the day

[2:08:43] Voice 6: so just want to encourage you that that that may not be encouraged from the

[2:08:48] Voice 6: institutional side of things, but then there's no reason to not plan to do that.

[2:08:55] Voice 6: And

[2:08:55] Voice 5: I feel like, you know, for Moschini, our process would not,

[2:09:03] Voice 6: like we're actually still waiting to get,

[2:09:06] Voice 6: we're hoping we're going to be on the regional planning team's list in the beginning of the new term.

[2:09:15] Voice 6: but all of that work that's done within

[2:09:18] Voice 5: the community can never be replaced by

[2:09:22] Voice 5: an organization institution like like the Islands Trust both from a financial

[2:09:28] Voice 5: point of view and just from a and just from an engagement point of view so I

[2:09:32] Voice 5: just really want to encourage you as community members to you know to start

[2:09:38] Voice 5: thinking ahead like what what different kinds of committees do you need to do

[2:09:41] Voice 5: do and to plan on doing that work because you will never get that level of deep community

[2:09:48] Voice 5: consultation from the organization itself.

[2:09:53] Voice 5: That's no shade on Islands Trust, it's just a reality.

[2:09:57] Voice 5: We don't have the capacity due to that kind of intensive community consultation.

[2:10:03] Voice 5: So I just want to encourage you guys to don't be daunted, it's your community, do the work

[2:10:10] Voice 5: that has

[2:10:10] Voice 17: to be done you should do it hey i said then you're the lpc and you should do it and

[2:10:16] Voice 17: that's the way it was done before yeah

[2:10:18] Voice 5: yeah well and there's i i i'm just saying like that's just

[2:10:21] Voice 5: a reality don't don't expect that the institution is going to support that approach the institution

[2:10:27] Voice 12: you're a part of it for god's sake

[2:10:28] Voice 17: but anyhow trust has lost its way completely i'm going to

[2:10:35] Voice 6: I'm gonna hold my comments there and just I just look to see if there's any

[2:10:42] Voice 6: interest in any amendments before we move on

[2:10:44] Voice 8: yeah I mean I just have one in

[2:10:46] Voice 8: the business case I would like to see the proposed budget for First Nations

[2:10:51] Voice 8: and the freshwater footprint as a combined budget not as a broken down

[2:10:56] Voice 8: budget so that it's more flexible

[2:11:05] Voice 15: I'm not sure if that would be my recommendation

[2:11:17] Voice 6: if you think the First Nations capacity funding

[2:11:20] Voice 6: is low then I'd encourage you to up it before we advance business case well I think that

[2:11:27] Voice 6: we should have at the time yeah go ahead maybe

[2:11:32] Voice 3: i just uh add something which is we are looking at

[2:11:36] just like we did

[2:11:57] Voice 3: look at basically uh per nation but that would mean that just galliana we're just

[2:12:02] Voice 3: talking to penelope that we're going to be talking to the other nations whether the other ocp

[2:12:06] Voice 3: processes so through the salt spring and at

[2:12:09] Voice 3: that point uh gather they work with them hopefully to

[2:12:12] Voice 3: understand their interest more closely but still regardless it is it is just 10 000 per nation so

[2:12:17] Voice 3: fair enough that may be what you're wanting to amend but i just want to make sure that that was

[2:12:22] Voice 3: clear yeah

[2:12:23] Voice 6: understood thank you so yeah that would be my recommendation is is as if as if you think

[2:12:31] Voice 6: that that 10 is is not enough for the initial yeah

[2:12:35] Voice 8: i don't think it is so i

[2:12:37] Voice 8: think it should

[2:12:38] Voice 8: I think it should be 25.

[2:12:39] Voice 8: 25 or 25?

[2:12:42] Voice 8: I mean, I think you start at 25.

[2:12:45] Voice 8: Well,

[2:12:46] Voice 15: my thought starts at 35 and then it locks down to 25.

[2:12:49] Voice 8: Sure.

[2:12:50] Voice 8: Sorry.

[2:12:50] Voice 15: Yeah, okay.

[2:12:53] Voice 8: It's just too long, so we need to up that because if we're going to do proper engagement,

[2:12:57] Voice 8: it means a lot more than it used to.

[2:13:00] Voice 8: It's no longer just a seven-letter term.

[2:13:02] Voice 15: Yeah, yeah.

[2:13:02] Voice 15: If this

[2:13:03] Voice 15: survives financial planning committee, then we're going to want to see that number

[2:13:06] Voice 15: as big as possible.

[2:13:07] Voice 15: It's not just having meetings there, it's them having meetings here as well.

[2:13:10] Yeah, and I see there's efficiencies

[2:13:12] Voice 15: with the conversations happening,

[2:13:14] Voice 15: even at the Orange Trust Conservancy too, with the nations, meeting face-to-face with nations

[2:13:18] Voice 15: all the time, and it's shared business as well.

[2:13:22] Voice 8: It's

[2:13:23] Voice 15: not done in silos anymore, talk together.

[2:13:25] Voice 6: So do you need a motion to amend that?

[2:13:27] Voice 6: I think a motion to amend the business case

[2:13:32] Voice 6: by increasing the First Nations capacity

[2:13:36] Voice 6: funding to 35,000 that would be one motion

[2:13:41] Voice 17: more than water yes

[2:13:45] Voice 6: so there's

[2:13:48] Voice 6: one of you want to make a motion to that effect I

[2:13:53] Voice 15: move all right I move the Galleon local trust committee amend the

[2:14:05] Voice 6: business case yes

[2:14:08] Voice 15: the business case sorry I haven't I had it here

[2:14:12] Voice 15: I want to make sure that I get this correct.

[2:14:16] Voice 5: OCP review project?

[2:14:18] Voice 15: Yeah, for the Gatland OCP review process.

[2:14:22] Voice 15: Amend.

[2:14:23] Voice 15: Oh,

[2:14:28] Voice 6: you had one written out?

[2:14:30] Voice 15: Yeah, I had one written out.

[2:14:36] Voice 15: I'm looking for it.

[2:14:39] Voice 15: Oh, here we go.

[2:14:45] Voice 15: Yes, alright, so I move to Gatland Local Trust Committee.

[2:14:47] Voice 15: Amend the OCP review business case.

[2:14:51] Voice 15: I'm adding First Nations Capacity Funding from $10,000 to $35,000 for fiscal year 2027-2028.

[2:15:14] Voice 15: Okay. Sorry, motion on the flyer.

[2:15:22] Voice 8: That's okay.

[2:15:23] Voice 8: I just wanted to make sure that that's clear for the staff.

[2:15:29] Voice 9: Got it?

[2:15:31] Voice 6: From 10 to 35?

[2:15:33] Voice 6: Okay, any further discussion?

[2:15:37] Voice 6: I'll call the question. All those in favour? That carries. And then it would be

[2:15:42] Voice 6: the motion on page 2.

[2:15:49] Voice 6: I move

[2:15:52] Voice 8: that the Galley Committee endorse the attached business case as amended for the

[2:15:57] Voice 8: OCP review project and that staff forward the business case to relevant committees and

[2:16:01] Voice 8: the Trust Council.

[2:16:02] Voice 8: Move.

[2:16:04] Voice 6: Seconded.

[2:16:05] Voice 9: Any further discussion?

[2:16:07] Voice 6: I'll call the question.

[2:16:08] Voice 6: All those in favour?

[2:16:09] Voice 6: I'm curious as well.

[2:16:12] Voice 6: Okay.

[2:16:13] Voice 6: Okay, so the next regular meeting of the Galleon Island Local Trust Committee scheduled for

[2:16:25] Voice 6: November 17th is an electronic meeting, understanding is that those are intended to be sort of introductory,

[2:16:35] Voice 6: so just for community members who may not expect an off-tonne of business, but there

[2:16:41] Voice 6: will obviously be a little bit and then so we do have another participation period go ahead

[2:16:47] Voice 6: i

[2:16:47] Voice 14: just want to mention that i'm generally with uh election process in the new ltc uh planners that

[2:16:55] Voice 14: are assigned to the ltc are generally moved around at that time so there we will have a new island

[2:17:01] Voice 14: planner starting this fall brad smith who knows the island very well and it's been a pleasure

[2:17:09] Voice 14: to work with the Gallaudet NLTC and the community, and I will be around, and I'll be keeping

[2:17:14] Voice 14: an eye on the ICP project too.

[2:17:16] Voice 14: So I also want to say that the regional planning team, they're amazing, and one of the main

[2:17:22] Voice 14: lead planners, her name is Norissa Chadwick, she's based in the South Office as well, so

[2:17:28] Voice 14: we've got a really good, strong team there, and so I'll be keeping an eye on this as well.

[2:17:35] Voice 14: Probably in four years, I'll be back.

[2:17:39] Voice 6: Okay, so we do have a second public participation period here, and I think I saw Sandy first.

[2:17:49] Voice 17: Yeah, I noticed when you were talking about Crystal Mountain, you said if they didn't have to have a cable, then they would come under bylaw enforcement.

[2:17:58] Voice 17: Now, there are a lot of properties on Galliano without applications that are not in compliance with the bylaws, and they're not under bylaw enforcement.

[2:18:06] Voice 17: Now, I know one such couple in Montague Harbor that you might remember, Jan and Martin Swan,

[2:18:12] Voice 17: they requested a face-to-face interview with Mr. Brownee.

[2:18:18] Voice 17: And he said that, he said he was confident, and he didn't grant that, and he says he's

[2:18:24] Voice 17: confident that the issues you raised are going to be addressed by trust counsel in the near

[2:18:32] Voice 17: future.

[2:18:32] Voice 17: And, you know, that was in February that this happened and now we're in August and I'd like to know where that went.

[2:18:41] Voice 17: But I'd also like to know why Crystal Mountain would be enforced against when there's no enforcement on hardly anything else.

[2:18:56] Voice 14: I'm there, sorry, out of the swans, and they're, they were, you know,

[2:19:01] Voice 17: exactly, I mean, I'm

[2:19:04] Voice 17: just saying that there was supposed to be a council action on bylaw enforcement, but

[2:19:09] Voice 17: that doesn't seem to happen anywhere that I've seen, and there are lots of properties

[2:19:14] Voice 17: without applications, and if Crystal Mountain were not to have an application, and they

[2:19:18] Voice 17: continued their activities, why would there be bylaw enforcement on their particular property

[2:19:24] Voice 17: and not the others that are not in compliance?

[2:19:29] Voice 17: It's generally a question for the LTC or staff.

[2:19:33] Voice 17: Okay, but you were the one who said it.

[2:19:35] Voice 17: I'm not

[2:19:36] Voice 17: saying that you should answer it.

[2:19:37] Voice 14: The comment related to Crystal Mountain is generally it's in the purview of the staff

[2:19:41] Voice 14: when we're working on the application, it's going to be closed, bylaw enforcement is going

[2:19:45] Voice 14: to be notified.

[2:19:47] Voice 17: Period.

[2:19:48] Voice 17: Of course, okay.

[2:19:49] Voice 17: Okay, and then they won't be enforced. So I'm just saying, why are the bylaws being enforced? Why?

[2:19:57] Voice 17: That's separate.

[2:19:58] Voice 17: What

[2:19:58] Voice 15: properties are you talking about?

[2:20:00] Voice 15: What properties? I

[2:20:01] Voice 17: don't know. I mean, whose properties would you think of? Anybody's?

[2:20:07] Voice 15: Getting

[2:20:08] Voice 5: a little off track here.

[2:20:14] Voice 17: they live next to the schoon's property the old schoon's property now there's a new owner and you

[2:20:20] Voice 17: heard from jan and martin at an ltc meeting they did a whole slideshow which i told you was a waste

[2:20:26] Voice 17: of time but uh anyway uh so now they've got a new person in there and it's doing all the same things

[2:20:34] Voice 17: with all of the things that are not in compliance so they asked to meet with mr brownie and he said

[2:20:40] Voice 17: said that there was an action going through Trust Council about bylaw enforcement policy

[2:20:49] Voice 17: and that he would get in touch with them in the near future.

[2:20:53] Voice 17: But nothing has happened and I want to know why bylaws are not being enforced.

[2:21:03] Voice 15: Well, I think you can understand why the government said this would be so frustrating for us as well.

[2:21:08] Voice 15: I don't have a file on it, so I don't really, I can't really, unless I can get a file to sign, I don't think that's the answer.

[2:21:18] Voice 15: Is it capacity, an insurance capacity?

[2:21:21] Voice 15: I will actually, just FYI, from the next trustee report in the after page, which is sadly one of the last ones, I would say,

[2:21:29] Voice 15: I did address a little bit about the bylaw enforcement to understand the rule of the trustee, and we're at an arm's length from, well, I'm not the enforcement aspect of it, we're governments, per se, and there's policy.

[2:21:43] Voice 14: Chair, I was going to say, there is a bylaw enforcement policy parameters in which a bylaw enforcement file is opened, generally by complaint, or are there parameters listed in the policy?

[2:21:55] Voice 14: so you may want to take a look at the list it's five five one jane

[2:22:03] Voice 6: jane will attend again speaking

[2:22:06] about the

[2:22:06] Voice 17: ocp review um i i'm not i'm not uh heartened by what i heard necessarily and it feels

[2:22:17] Voice 17: um as if it is more of a staff driven process than a community driven process and i think

[2:22:26] Voice 17: that you can

[2:22:28] Voice 17: well, we'll take it too

[2:22:29] Voice 17: to the new LTC

[2:22:31] Voice 17: but it is really critical

[2:22:33] Voice 17: that it be a community driven process

[2:22:36] Voice 17: we have a lot of new people

[2:22:38] Voice 17: on this island, especially

[2:22:39] Voice 17: since COVID, we have people who really

[2:22:42] Voice 17: are not cognizant

[2:22:44] Voice 17: of what the honest trust is

[2:22:45] Voice 17: what living in a trust area

[2:22:48] Voice 17: means

[2:22:50] Voice 17: and as well, when we talk

[2:22:52] Voice 17: about indigenous consultation

[2:22:54] Voice 17: consultation, the primary people who have an interest here are the Penelope. They actually

[2:22:59] Voice 17: have a reserve here. They are in the midst of having land transferred to them. It's very

[2:23:05] Voice 17: important in my mind that they be at the table throughout the process, not just a one-off

[2:23:12] Voice 17: little consultation here and with this tribe around here, this nation here. They need to

[2:23:19] Voice 17: be an integral part of the process of this review and so if there's a steering committee we need to

[2:23:28] Voice 17: have them participating in the steering committee maybe we'll have a like a special committee on

[2:23:34] Voice 17: indigenous relations or indigenous issues in like we had agriculture you know water all those kinds

[2:23:42] Voice 17: of things but um it needs to be community driven that's my comment thank

[2:23:50] Voice 6: you uh kasha okay um

[2:23:55] Voice 16: jana said along with a bunch of things but i just wanted to reiterate too that at the last ocp review

[2:24:01] Voice 16: on galiano it was led the leadership came from our ltc and that's really

[2:24:08] Voice 16: important to signal to the

[2:24:10] Voice 16: community that this is what you believe in this is what the direction you want to go this is how you

[2:24:18] Voice 16: want to structure it you want to add community voices and i totally agree this is why i was

[2:24:24] Voice 16: upset about the ten thousand dollars it's not just to consult with an advocate to see what their

[2:24:29] Voice 16: interests are they need to be at the table and if the money if that requires money for them to

[2:24:35] Voice 16: to be at the table, that's where the money should go.

[2:24:39] Voice 16: Not necessarily to staff to find out

[2:24:45] Voice 16: what their interests are, but to get them to be able

[2:24:47] Voice 16: to come to the table under the leadership

[2:24:50] Voice 16: of our LTC committee that says,

[2:24:53] Voice 16: here, here we are all together at the table,

[2:24:56] Voice 16: what do we want on our ICP?

[2:24:58] Voice 16: What do we want that to deliver?

[2:25:01] Voice 16: That's what I really think is important.

[2:25:04] Voice 16: And then

[2:25:05] Voice 16: the other thing is, I'm sorry I have to do two things, but I have a question about

[2:25:10] Voice 16: the Cowichan consultation for the associated argument.

[2:25:15] Voice 16: I didn't hear an answer to this specifically.

[2:25:18] Voice 16: Cowichan tribes have reviewed the proposed amendment and they want to flag a couple of

[2:25:23] Voice 16: points.

[2:25:24] Voice 16: The proposed setback exemption allowing structures within 7.5 meters of the natural boundary

[2:25:31] Voice 16: of the sea is the main worry, but foreshore and intertidal zones around these islands

[2:25:37] Voice 16: hold importance to Cowichan tribes for harvesting access and cultural use.

[2:25:43] Voice 16: Structures like dock, anchor pads, stairs, and walkways may seem minor individually,

[2:25:49] Voice 16: but their cumulative presence along the shoreline across multiple small islands is concerning.

[2:25:56] Voice 16: We ask that the LDC ensure any development proceeding under these exemptions allows for

[2:26:04] Voice 16: potential impacts to traditional use of intertidal zones.

[2:26:08] Voice 16: And so this communication, this correspondence is in the agenda package, but you don't hear

[2:26:16] Voice 16: the voice of the Kalachin people.

[2:26:18] Voice 16: Were they satisfied with what they were told?

[2:26:22] Voice 16: So I guess that's a question for staff.

[2:26:24] Voice 16: out? Were they satisfied with their concerns being addressed? Yes.

[2:26:32] Voice 16: Good. Okay, good to know.

[2:26:34] Voice 14: It's in the, it's page 61 of the agenda. I've put together the full correspondence back and forth

[2:26:40] Voice 14: with CaliGen. Okay.

[2:26:45] Voice 8: I'll make a comment too if that's okay. So one of the other aspects of that

[2:26:50] Voice 8: is not just to do with the LTC, it's to do with the DOC applications going to the

[2:26:54] Voice 8: the provincial process as well and so that process you know right now we have the new

[2:27:01] Voice 8: construction regulations have been released for marine structures but the engagement strategy

[2:27:09] Voice 8: hasn't been released yet but that's what you know we've been told and I mean there's been

[2:27:15] Voice 8: people at the table who from all aspects of the groups involved you know contractors First

[2:27:21] Voice 8: Nations government and that that's supposed to be a First Nations led

[2:27:26] Voice 8: process which is what we were been pushing for for a long time so it's not

[2:27:31] Voice 8: just like if we're approving docs to be well there's a much more rigorous

[2:27:36] Voice 8: process in regards to First Nations when that happens as well Jennifer yeah I

[2:27:43] Voice 13: just want to say I'm not speaking for the APC just as a person who was

[2:27:49] Voice 13: involved in the agency and the consideration of the associated islands

[2:27:55] Voice 13: referral and it concerned me greatly from the very beginning and continued to

[2:28:01] Voice 13: concern me that the APC and I guess the LTC were really not provided with any

[2:28:08] Voice 13: real information about the cumulative environmental impacts of what we were

[2:28:13] Voice 13: asked to consider so that remained a completely I would say unaddressed

[2:28:19] Voice 13: unresolved issue and we did I guess the best with what we had but I think that

[2:28:27] Voice 13: was a very serious deficiency in the process and what we were how we were

[2:28:36] Voice 13: asked to consider it and we talked about that a number of times so you know and

[2:28:46] Voice 13: saw those comments from First Nations as well so I think that should be really

[2:28:53] Voice 13: taken into account in future referrals we had no data you know and none of us

[2:29:02] Voice 13: had even been to those islands. So, you know,

[2:29:06] Voice 13: those referrals have to be, I think,

[2:29:12] Voice 13: more thoughtfully considered and, yeah, in terms of resources. The other thing I

[2:29:20] Voice 13: just want to say just quickly in regard to Crystal Mountain is that I know

[2:29:28] Voice 13: that there are many people in this community who really participate in the

[2:29:32] Voice 13: activities and it's important to them but the thing that has always bothered

[2:29:37] Voice 13: me from the very beginning continues to bother me and I understand that bylaw

[2:29:41] Voice 13: enforcement is suspended when an application is put forward but I still

[2:29:49] Voice 13: have to say it really bothers me that compliance, lack of compliance you know

[2:29:57] Voice 13: just continues and in this case

[2:30:00] Voice 13: has continued for a very long time. And I don't think that's demonstrating good faith from the applicant.

[2:30:08] Voice 13: I think there, and you know, it sounds like, you know, there was a retreat there this summer.

[2:30:12] Voice 13: You know, that's not in compliance with the current zoning as I understand it.

[2:30:18] Voice 13: So, you know, those are the things that really create, um, oh, what's the word, dissonance, I think, in the community.

[2:30:27] Voice 13: And we do know that there are other bylaw violations and in fact a notice of civil claim

[2:30:34] Voice 13: that we don't know what's happening with that.

[2:30:37] Voice 13: So you know we all need to play by the same rules and have the same level of respect for

[2:30:44] Voice 13: the land and for the environment because it is impacted by all these decisions.

[2:30:50] Voice 13: So anyway, it's 10-0.

[2:30:52] Voice 7: Art,

[2:30:53] Voice 6: did you still want to speak?

[2:30:54] Voice 7: I

[2:30:54] Voice 6: was just going to

[2:30:55] Voice 7: reiterate what Sandy said about the role of the LTC in leading an official community plan review.

[2:31:08] Voice 7: And it's true, leadership for a community-driven process does have to come from the trustees.

[2:31:17] Voice 7: That's a really important thing.

[2:31:18] Voice 7: I remember in the 2010-2011 review, Luis Sicario and Sandy were the trustees, and they made it clear they wanted public involvement.

[2:31:32] Voice 7: They actually were involved in helping to strike the committees.

[2:31:38] Voice 7: They didn't just leave it up to the committee, oh you want to do it, go and do it.

[2:31:42] Voice 7: They were committed to it, and what we need from the trustees for this OCD review,

[2:31:47] Voice 7: you again is support and leadership indicating that you want public

[2:31:55] Voice 7: involvement. Why public involvement? Because I believe as a trustee neighbor, the process of the trust policy statement was ridiculous. We had one meeting or something, we didn't have money to do anything.

[2:32:12] Voice 7: You guys could have, trustees can hold meetings without staff, I don't know if it's a chair

[2:32:22] Voice 7: or the committee, but yeah, you could have facilitated meetings with the community and

[2:32:28] Voice 7: without staff being present.

[2:32:29] Voice 7: Zero cost for those things.

[2:32:32] Voice 7: Trustees came to a lot of those steering committee and advisory committee meetings during the

[2:32:39] Voice 7: OCP process.

[2:32:40] Voice 7: So, it would be good to hear stuff about people wanting community involvement when they open

[2:32:48] Voice 7: up.

[2:32:48] Voice 7: That would be it.

[2:32:52] Voice 6: Okay, Jane.

[2:32:53] Voice 17: Back to the OCP again.

[2:32:55] Voice 17: Just to say that I agree with Trustee Govro that there's so much that needs updating in

[2:33:04] Voice 17: our OCP as far as, you know, what's current and climate, all kinds of things like that.

[2:33:09] Voice 17: So, I think it's important to think about when we're creating a new OCP, it may not be amended for another 15 years.

[2:33:18] Voice 17: So, I mean, we have to, you know, bring all of the community minds together to create something that will be enduring.

[2:33:28] Voice 17: Thank

[2:33:30] Voice 6: you. And Carmita, last word.

[2:33:37] Voice 4: When the chair said about the institution, the Island Trust, that wouldn't work now in this base of community planning,

[2:33:48] Voice 4: he was just saying the reality. The reality of Capicam, more or less, and the Island Trust.

[2:33:56] Voice 4: It's a more complex institution, more expensive. You see before, the OCP was done on this committee

[2:34:06] Voice 4: for free. That's the reality. But I think that the communities will be maybe able to

[2:34:16] Voice 4: slowly change that. It doesn't have to be like this. It could be a change. I hope so.

[2:34:23] Voice 4: and the island track will become less bureaucratic, maybe, and the community will have more connections with you.

[2:34:34] Voice 4: But the chair says the truth. That's how it is.

[2:34:40] Voice 4: Now, my question is this. The chair spoke very well about the Alves Aeroplane Committee, about all the work they have done.

[2:34:51] Voice 4: One of the works was about the draft policy statement, but this is the local trust committee

[2:35:00] Voice 4: when could have presented the comments to the trust committee, they decided not to respond.

[2:35:08] Voice 4: This local trust committee was the only committee that said no response to the draft policy

[2:35:17] Voice 4: And you had a very good report.

[2:35:20] Voice 4: You could have said some comments.

[2:35:23] Voice 4: A lot of people asked comments.

[2:35:25] Voice 4: Why did you say no response?

[2:35:28] Voice 4: Others, I read all Gabriela,

[2:35:31] Voice 4: Gabriela sent a lot of recommendations from the people of the island that they had comments.

[2:35:38] Voice 4: And the trustees presented.

[2:35:40] Voice 4: Maybe they didn't agree or agree, but they presented.

[2:35:43] Voice 4: But you didn't present that. You should ignore the community. That's what shouldn't be done.

[2:35:54] Voice 4: Because you are here to represent us. You have all the work of the Advisory Planning Committee.

[2:36:01] Voice 4: Why no response? So you acted in the same way, in the same way pushing away what the community is.

[2:36:11] Voice 4: and I think that was very wrong.

[2:36:14] Voice 4: Okay,

[2:36:17] Voice 6: Sandy, final word.

[2:36:20] Voice 4: I

[2:36:21] Voice 17: forgot what I was going to say now.

[2:36:22] Voice 17: I find the Adventist Trust a completely different organization

[2:36:26] Voice 17: than when I was a trustee

[2:36:28] Voice 17: and it is not better than it was when I was there

[2:36:35] Voice 17: and I think the Adventist Trust has lost its way very much

[2:36:39] Voice 17: and that most don't do seeds that are rushed

[2:36:42] Voice 17: just rubber stamp everything, and that's it. I just find it really discouraging, and I'm just really discouraged.

[2:36:54] Voice 17: I swore I'd never come to another meeting, but it actually came up in my house, and there you go.

[2:37:00] Voice 17: There you go. And here I am, and I am sorry about the state that I was supposed to be in, and I feel really sad about it.

[2:37:08] Voice 17: Okay,

[2:37:13] Voice 6: well thank you everybody, and call adjournment.