Bylaws passed by local officials to streamline their own agendas may have had unintended consequences, as Salt Spring’s Islands Trust representatives revealed they had first learned about a controversial project planned at Baker Beach through an online effort to halt it.
“People assume that the Local Trust Committee (LTC) was aware and about to make decisions in regard to Baker Beach,” said trustee Laura Patrick, telling attendees at the LTC meeting Thursday, Nov. 14 that she, perhaps like many there, had become aware of the Crown land application first through opponents’ social media campaign –– and that trustees’ role is limited, since the province holds final authority over decisions there.
“These provincial referrals can be quite of interest to the public,” said Patrick, “[but] when we aren’t part of the process, we’re not part of the process.”
The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is considering an application to modify a 560-metre strip of provincial Crown land fronting six Booth Bay waterfront parcels between Quarry Drive and Baker Road to protect against erosion –– a project opposed by an island group worried about public access at the popular beach and potential environmental impacts.
The period for public comment to the provincial ministry closed Nov. 13, although several islanders spoke against the project at the LTC meeting the following day, and a proponent representing the applicants spoke in favour.
But while the Islands Trust intersects with the proposal through a ministry referral for its comments, the licence of occupation itself that would allow the project to advance is granted –– or denied –– through a decision by the province.
Trust regional planning manager Chris Hutton explained the referral from Crown Lands was received over the summer, and staff at that time –– as a matter of course, he said –– provided a response indicating that the proposal generally met regulations within the Islands Trust.
“[Such referrals] can be numerous,” said Hutton, “and they are by and large mundane.”
The Baker Beach proposal lies within the Trust’s marine shoreline development permit area (DPA), he added, which requires the Trust to issue a permit –– and applications for development permits for each of the four properties involved were received and have been under review “for some time.”
But trustees themselves were not in the loop, largely because they voted two years ago not to be.
The authority for marine shoreline DPA permit issuance fell to staff under a 2022 bylaw passed by the current LTC, delegating the issuance of several kinds of development permits to staff in efforts to “improve process efficiency, reduce the size of LTC agendas and provide greater certainty to the applicants,” according to a contemporary staff report.
The delegation of permit approvals to staff was a recommendation in the Islands Trust’s governance review report; indeed, the Islands Trust Council had lobbied the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to amend the Trust’s regulation to give trustees the ability to shift such development permits’ issuance to an administrative level.
Hutton said staff in their decisions are reliant upon reports from qualified professionals –– in good standing with their professional organization, with demonstrated relevant experience acting within their abilities and expertise –– to present application proposals to staff on behalf of the applicants.
“At this time, for each of those four proposals, we have not issued a permit,” said Hutton.
“If staff determines they are in line with the development permit guidelines, then the application –– from the perspective of the Islands Trust –– would essentially be approved, and Crown Lands has to make a determination on the tenure.”
If staff reject a development permit because it does not meet the guidelines, he added, the applicant has the option to request the LTC reconsider that decision.
But trustees were noticeably uncomfortable with the notion that the provincial process –– and possibly their own legislation –– had seemingly left them with little role to play in an application with so much public interest.
“What power do we have to actually do something here?” asked trustee Jamie Harris. “I’d like to know how far we can go with halting this.”
Patrick suggested a review of the current letter of understanding on Crown lands between the Islands Trust and the ministry –– penned in 1994 and possibly out-of-date, she said –– and the LTC passed a resolution Thursday directing staff to forward all the public correspondence they’d received on the Baker Beach proposal as “additional information” to provincial regulators.
Trustees also passed resolutions that may bring them back into the loop on such applications in the future, tasking staff to “directly” provide Crown land lease referrals to the LTC and add them to the applications report “with sufficient time for consideration of response,” although it’s unclear how that may ultimately mesh with their 2022 bylaw.
“I think there’s a certain level of expectation from the public that the LTC should be at least well informed about these,” said LTC chair Tim Peterson. “And in some cases, providing input into a response beyond the technical staff end of things. That’s the intent of this motion.”
Details for the proposal, now in review, can be viewed at comment.nrs.gov.bc.ca/applications?clidDtid=1415573; a petition outlining opponents’ concerns is still up at change.org/p/save-baker-rd-beach-its-rare-midshipman-fish-habitat-sign-this-petition and the applicants have developed a website in response at bakerbeach.ca.