Committee of the Whole - 02 Jul 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3: Temporary Use Permit No. 73 FortisBC Workforce Lodge and Temporary Use Permit No.74 Construction Yard
3.i: FortisBC Construction Temporary Workforce Accommodation Temporary Use Permit No. 73
3.ii: FortisBC Construction Laydown Yard Temporary Use Permit No. 74
4: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:07:00)


SPEAKER_-1
0:00:28 (0:04:59)

e

SPEAKER_11
0:05:28 (0:01:32)

e good afternoon and welcome to the committee of the whole for Tuesday July 2nd my name is John French I'm the acting mayor for the month of July and in that capacity I will chair today's Committee of the whole meeting and in opening up this meeting this afternoon I'd like to welcome everyone to the Squamish Nation traditional territory hot squalling quit by the end of the month I'll have it perfected please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you've got concerns this afternoon please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting and that is Carrie Wells

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:07:00 (0:00:14)


SPEAKER_11
0:07:00 (0:00:13)

item number two on our agenda is to adopt the agenda Council that is moved by mayor Herford and seconded by councelor Hamilton all those in favor motion carries unanimous

Temporary Use Permit No. 73 FortisBC Workforce Lodge and Temporary Use Permit No.74 Construction Yard
0:07:14 (3:11:01)

Katherine Mulligan, Director of Major Projects Industrial, along with Yones Valanis, Senior Director of Community Development, and Sarah Bailey, Director of Engineering, presented updated information on two temporary use permit applications related to the FortisBC Eagle Mountain Pipeline Project. The presentation aimed to provide the council with an overview of the project, which involves expanding a portion of FortisBC's natural gas transmission system to increase overall capacity. This expansion is intended to deliver natural gas to Woodfibre LNG for processing and export. The presentation also covered regulatory contexts, the district's role as a regulator, and specific details about the two temporary use permits (TUPs) applied for by FortisBC: one for a temporary workforce accommodation (TWW) to house project workers and another for a construction laydown yard to support project activities.

During the discussion, council members raised concerns and sought clarification on various aspects of the TUP applications, including security costs related to policing and emergency response, traffic management, environmental impacts, and the potential effects on local businesses and community safety. There was particular interest in how the proposed TWW and laydown yard would integrate with existing infrastructure and the broader community, especially in terms of traffic safety at key intersections and the protection of environmental resources. The council also discussed the need for further assessment and mitigation of potential impacts, as well as the importance of public engagement in the decision-making process. Ultimately, the council deliberated on the appropriate steps forward, including the possibility of holding a public hearing to gather more input from the community before making a final decision on the TUP applications.

SPEAKER_11
0:07:14 (0:00:19)

and that takes us to item three staff reports temporary use permit number 73 Forest BC Workforce Lodge and temporary use permit number 74 construction yard staff will turn it over to you

SPEAKER_03
0:07:34 (0:13:21)

good afternoon chair and committee my name is Katherine Mulligan I'm the director of major projects industrial today I'm joined with yones valanis senior director of Community Development and Sarah Bailey director of engineering and other members of staff are on hand to answer questions following this presentation the purpose of today's presentation is to present updated information concerning two temporary use permit application related to The fores Eagle Mountain pipeline project and to receive any feedback from committee as an outcome of this information prior to proceeding with an issuance decision by Council so to provide an overview of the Eagle Mountain pipeline project the EGP project is expanding a portion of for BC's existing natural gas transmission system the project involves the construction of a 47 km natural gas pipeline and Associated infrastructure the new pipeline will generally parallel Forest BC's existing pipeline part of the natural gas transmission system that Services Squamish the resort Municipality of Whistler the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island the proposed pipeline is to be operated with the existing Fortis BC pipeline to increase overall natural gas transmission capacity of foris species natural of Forbes transmission system in order to deliver natural gas to Wood fiber LNG for the purpose of liquefied natural gas processing and export to provide regulatory contexts associated with the EGP project overall Fortis BC is a public utility regulated by the BC Utilities Commission through the Utilities Commission act regulatory responsibility for oil and gas activities in BC is delegated to the BC energy regulator or BC for short through the energy resource activities act BC's regulatory framework for all oil and gas activities in The Province regulatory approvals associated with the EGP project include related BC project permits viewable on BC's website related to Pipeline and facility construction an environmental assessment certificate or EAC received in 2016 from BC's environmental assessment office or eao for short with subsequent certif certificate Amendment approvals and Squamish nation's approval in 2016 as part of its unique environmental assessment process or Squamish Nation environmental assessment agreement and subsequent Amendment approvals as part of both eao and Squamish Nation approvals Fords BC must meet several conditions at various project stages the district role as a regulator for the EG for EGP is Guided by loc The Local Government Act and Community Charter and its interaction with other acts and regulations part of BC oil BC's oil and gas regulatory framework primarily the district regulatory Authority includes the issuance of development related permits and work permits associated with the construction and development with construction and development activities for the project in addition to permit issuance the district has legislative authority to enter into various agreements to offset associate economic environmental and social impacts arising from projects to support EGP construction activities Ford SBC has applied for two tups temporary use permit 73 proposes a temporary workspace accommodation to house project workers and for the projects for the Project's duration and temporary use permit 74 proposes a construction workspace to serve as a laydown yard in proximity to the Project's activities and a parking area to support temporary Workforce accommodation needs specific approvals granted by other project Regulators related to each tup application include the Project's original EAC which permitted temporary construction facilities including a two hectar campsite to house 150 to 200 project workers a subsequent Amendment to the E granted in late 2023 permitting an increase in Camp size to seven hectares to house up to 600 project workers Squamish nation's initial project approval in 2016 which included temporary construction facilities and a subsequent amendment in 23 allowing sub allowing for the seven hectare Camp to house up to 600 project workers and BCR permitting for the use of workspace and for and to provide a road use permit concerning a proposed access road to the tww site the tup application for the tww was received December 14th 2022 following the district received an application for the yard on December 20th Staff first presented the application to council for initial feedback on February 14th of 20123 and again on July 11th 23 staff have since been working with the applicant to Res resolve outstanding feedback the following slides present information concerning t73 for the proposed temporary Workforce accommodation the proposed tww is located on a s 7 Hector site owned by LaFarge Canada within the District of Squamish the site is in a cleared forestry cut block and relatively flat terrain covered in shrub and young tree growth the tww is to consist of single story wooden structure complexes with a total gross floor area of approximately 145,00 ft and ISO proposed to accommodate 576 beds with the option to add 36 more The Proposal calls for 325 parking stalls and a bus shuttle staging area for about eight buses for worker Transportation purposes in addition to the main parking area Forest BC has allocated an additional overflow parking adjacent to the proposed construction yard that is anticipated to have over 350 additional parking stalls available able based on Fords BC's 6-day work schedule up to 400 workers would be lodged to the camp at the start of its operations in 2025 with a peak of 600 workers in the summer of 2025 to connect the tww to existing Road Network a new access road is proposed to converge with Powerhouse Springs Road via crownland which surrounds Powerhouse Springs water reservoir the operation of the lodge is prescribed as a regulated AC ity under BC's Public Health Act and the lodge would operate according to requirements under the BC industrial Camp regulation upon opening in occupancy the primary service provider at Co would manage the full service Lodge operations which would include the aspects as described on the slide access to the tww would be from Highway 99 the mamquam FSR Powerhouse Springs Sr and the new proposed 1.2 km site access road to ensure public vehicle access is restricted to both the District of Squamish water wells and infrastructure as well as Atlantic Powers facility Forest BC intends to remove the existing gate on Powerhouse Springs Rule and in install two new security access gates temporary use permits allow for the use of land on a temporary basis not otherwise permitted in the zoning bylaw tups may be issued for a period of up to 3 years and may be renewed once subject to council approval or by the general manager if eligible for delegated approval conditions under which a temporary use may be allowed are established in the permit including the site design and layout and length of time the temporary use can occur Security depits Site restoration plans and letters of undertaking may also be required to ensure conditions are met objective 31.1 a and policy 312b of the district's official community plan set out the criteria for how temporary used permits are reviewed the table provided on the slide outlines this criteria and Associated information from the tww permit application the use is confirmed as temporary with anticipated operations from Q2 2025 until the end of construction in 26 the existing land use is resource the ocp land use designation is future residential neighborhood intended to be designated as residential neighborhoods in the future as part of a sub area plan and ocp amendment process surrounding land uses include resource recreational tourism with institutional and District drinking water infrastructure in proximity to the site access to the site is via mamquam FSR adjacent to Valley the valley Cliff neighborhood University Heights is in proximity to the tww site via walking trail potential conflicts include potential traffic impacts generated by project workers lighting sound and dust associated with tww access in the destinated of the Val Valley Cliff neighborhood as described later in the presentation the site is situated on groundwater resource aquafer 398 and presents a potential risk of contamination to groundwater the tww site and the temporary axis are within an area classified as a disturbed ecosystem due to the forestry cut block however the site and temporary access include significant areas of riparian habitat which are considered environmentally sensitive areas if approved several permits are required from VCH related to water and waste and Food Services the tup is proposed for a duration of 3 years with the possibility of renewal if construction is delayed fortisbc has committed to being responsible for site Reclamation including tww decommissioning and site remediation and relevant policies in the ocp include 9.2 e 10.14 f 14.4 a which speak to employer provided housing for Industrial Development projects and reducing Wildlife interactions based on staff's review of application materials available on the district's development showcase the following summarized items from table three of the report to committee are identified as requiring further assessment Andor mitigation and would either be provided as part of the feedback to the applicant following today's feedback from committee Andor included as conditions part of any draft permit to be considered by Council Emergency Management and security plans related to the operations are absent from application materials and are required for review the site bio inventory requires additional revisions and is recommended to be updated for review an Environmental Management plan related to the operations of the tww is recommended to be provided to the district for review prior to operations groundwater testing at the site is recommended to inform appropriate groundwater protection measures and more information regarding tww site grading is needed to better understand the scope and risks associated with the soil removal or additions associated with site grading for construction and tww site decommissioning a detailed security plan is recommended to be provided to the RCMP prior to tww operations staff recommended that Fords BC provide a finalized Tia based on staff comments to the satisfaction of the district and the Ministry of Transportation and infrastructure staff that staff work with a consultant pending the Ministry of Transportation infrastructure's approval to complete an inroad safety review of the mamquam FSR and Highway 99 intersection to inform potential mitigations relating to intersection safety via an updated traffic management strategy and staff also recommend withholding the t73 until the traffic management strategy is updated and approved by the district and other authorities having jurisdiction staff recommend that the applicant also prepare a site restoration plan which would be used to inform a security deposit amount to be required as part of this permit staff have developed a summary of dra draft permit conditions for council's feedback which have been included as part of a council's report as attachment for of the council's agenda package an overview of conditions have been outlined also on the slide proposed conditions include prior to issuance conditions of the permit once issued and conditions concerning the administration of this permit contingency planning Fords BC staff have verbally advised staff that should t p73 for temporary Workforce accommodation be unsuccessful or if a council decision is not made by early September worker accommodations would consist of a mix of local accommodation and accommodations outside of the district with daily busing to the construction areas a subsequent letter received by Council dated June 21st 2024 from foris BC indicates that further planning is underway including contingency planning discussions with indigenous Nations while not to be considered as part of council's decision regarding tup issuance Fords BC has offered 250,000 in the form of a community benefit to the district of Squamish further details concerning Community Investments made to date by the applicant has been included in council's agenda package and with that I can pause to provide time for the committee to discuss and provide feedback before proceeding to tup application

SPEAKER_11
0:20:55 (0:00:11)

74 Council questions councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:21:06 (0:00:41)

Hamilton thanks very much thanks for your ongoing work on this a question about the security related to covering costs of policing and emergency response does that include would that include all forms of police Poli in like for example protest act policing required the specialized policing that would be required in the event of any protest action or is this only our local RCMP leasing

SPEAKER_08
0:21:47 (0:00:19)

costs anything extraordinary outside of our regular policing costs we have been instructed that the province has a particular team that they would bring in above and beyond what council currently taxes for in terms of

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:07 (0:00:11)

RCMP and that cost would it be the responsibility of the province to cover or would it be the responsibility of the proponent to

SPEAKER_08
0:22:19 (0:00:18)

cover I would like to get more accurate information I'm under the understanding that it's the province that would cover it because it's part of their policing operation but I can definitely look that up in the interim for accuracy

SPEAKER_11
0:22:37 (0:00:03)

y councelor Anderson followed by mayor

Eric Andersen
0:22:41 (0:00:34)

Herford yes my question relates to tup number 73 and under traffic management the inservice road safety review it's defined as a detailed engineering study of an existing Road facility to diagnose road safety risk factors and to identify mitigation measures to yield a quantifiable safety Improvement my question is which road facility what is the scope of this review is it a particular stretch of road or intersection or what in particular would be would be within the scope of this

SPEAKER_02
0:23:16 (0:00:13)

review thank you for the question Sarah Bailey director of engineering for this particular inservice Road Safety review we'd be looking solely at the intersection of the mamquam for Service Road and Highway 99

Eric Andersen
0:23:30 (0:00:01)

thank you thank you

SPEAKER_11
0:23:31 (0:00:02)

chair mayor

Armand Hurford
0:23:34 (0:00:52)

Herford thank you the where to start with this I think I'll start with a question on the on the parking there's it's the report speaks to the parking at the temporary Workforce accommodation being used as overflow parking and I know that the footprint of this proposed facility has really been driven by the single use single occupancy vehicle so I wondered if in this planning is that shrinking the footprint is this traffic management that's being proposed here is that shrinking the footprint of the project of The Proposal because of that capacity that may exist at the lay down yard if this all sort of goes as

SPEAKER_03
0:24:26 (0:01:05)

intended thank you for the question through the chair the parking intended at the lay down yard is to accommodate the majority of Staff or worker project workers that would be residing at the initial outset of the tww should it be constructed and occupied however in the summer occupancy could go up as high as 600 and the forest has indicated that they would have a parking space as a requirement underneath the camp regulations for each worker so it doesn't actually shrink the size of the proposed tww it what it does is the parking restrictions is to limit the number of to ensure that the lay down area is fully maximized and used for parking and shuttles are used between the tww until which time it's required that overflow parking be used

Armand Hurford
0:25:32 (0:00:36)

okay thank you on the topic of restoration plan the do we have do we have goals as a as a district as far as the proposed the new road that's constructed whether that should stay whether that should be restored to its original state or like how where are we on what is being considered here as far as restoration or what ought to be considered in any plan that they bring forward for consideration or approval by the

SPEAKER_01
0:26:09 (0:00:55)

district through the chair we are still assessing what will be subject to Restoration obviously anything that the temporary use permit allows is subject to Restoration the roads if they're outside of the property are not necessarily subject to that usually what we look for is you know this making sure that the services that have been installed on the site are removed and the side is returned to generally the same condition as it was in this case I think the restoration plan will focus on groundwater protection and making sure that the you know after the facility is removed there the risks are not present anymore so I would say it's in ground Services usually and in this case groundwater

Armand Hurford
0:27:05 (0:00:08)

protection okay so not so the road any New Roads or Bridges or infrastructure that way wouldn't be considered into this

SPEAKER_01
0:27:13 (0:00:15)

mechanism not typically although this is a very unique situation where we have you know a project that is heavily regulated by other jurisdictions so it's really difficult to give a very concrete answer

Armand Hurford
0:27:28 (0:00:34)

okay no that's fine thankk you there are a few pieces here this I kind of had a reoccurring theme where some of the conditions like the Environmental Management piece it says is required to be provided to the district for review and others it says approve and just I'm assuming that language is intentional and I just wonder what to what level these things that are just for review what level of scrutiny and how what that looks like and the differentiation between the two because I know there's likely overlapping jurisdiction on many of these pieces can you speak to that language

SPEAKER_03
0:28:03 (0:00:38)

difference thank you through the chair exactly your comment at the end of the question is that there is overlapping jurisdiction in particular around environmental manner matters and while the district is requesting that the proponent adhere as close as possible to dpa1 requirements we would put subject to review as opposed osed approval so the district would be making recommendations on how the applicant can meet the requirements of the district as opposed to being required opposed to requiring to approve such

Armand Hurford
0:28:41 (0:01:51)

plans one more yeah one more and then yeah I'm likely to have more if there's time later under the in the staff report surrounding land uses under tourism it says that the skish Canyon is a significant tourist experience under construction is in the vicinity of the tww site and I think that's a understatement and I know that a lot of the pieces in the a lot of the traffic pieces in particular are aiming to mitigate appear to be aiming to mitigate the potential impact to that facility but this is through the access is through the middle of the site which isn't which I don't think quite is quite captured in the one sentence but I won't pick apart that I'm more concerned about how the detailed management of if this is to go forward there's The Canyons under construction the yard the facility would need to be constructed and including road building and so on heavy equipment and then once both are operational which might happen around the same time According to some time timelines the like the spefic specific management of the movements there I see like how is that meant to be captured I know that that's again the driver for a lot of these things around shuttle buses and so on but how does that level of detail and where get accounted for like where does that where does that live is that up to us or is this something that we that it doesn't feel quite right I don't think to leave it to proponent or the each proponent to come to an agreement where do we handle that if not here

SPEAKER_01
0:30:33 (0:00:39)

adjacent land uses as including tourism commercial which is what scam quamish Canyon is are definitely legitimate considerations in a temporary use permit process and I think staff are still assessing whether they're whether the this project can mitigate impacts obviously there will be impacts it's just a matter of determining whether they there's been an effort to mitigate them to what extent and how great of an impact it will have turn it over to

SPEAKER_03
0:31:12 (0:01:29)

Kate so through the chair thank you Mr vincus the discussions that had been ongoing between my understanding based from the applicant and my understanding of the situation between the canyon and the applicant in terms of the discussion is that discussions broke down towards the end of December and there has not been discussions since concerning mitigations or compensation that the between the applicant and the and the and sish Canyon project the applicant has suggested mitigations around traffic management trying to minimize any road closures trying to move Road access roads further away from the project however the understanding that staff have is that the canyon isn't satisfied at this time with what's been proposed or the proposal is falling short of the expectations of that tourism entity so at this time I don't know if any further discussions have taken place between the applicant and the Squamish Canyon project the last update I had which was very recent was that the last discussion took place at the end of

Armand Hurford
0:32:41 (0:01:02)

2023 follow up coun pting go don't worry I'm cutting myself off after this as well so yeah thank you I think so if what level of detail would we expect in a temporary use permit to address things like this that seem rather large and need to be need to be resolved because to me the exactly what time and who pays for what piece of flagging and where the security gates are like all these things are very there's a lot there I could see to have these two complex construction initiatives underway at the same time and then those two operations underway at the same time it's kind of like two different phases should we not see these here or is this to ask for a plan of some sort that would be amended or that would be attached to this so I'm just trying to figure out where I should expect to see this to be addressed because I do expect it to be addressed to be

SPEAKER_03
0:33:44 (0:00:51)

clear there are still pieces of information that the that staff required to make a full assessment of impacts and what mitigations can help address those impacts includ including one component would be the inroad safety review for the mamquam and Highway 99 intersection in addition and that would help inform what mitigations would be required and can also relate back to the Squamish Canyon project in addition to that some of the conditions that were proposed in the table that was attached to the report are meant to address some of the traffic concerns but we would need to have more direction from Council in terms of expectations regarding mitigations associated with that project and this

SPEAKER_11
0:34:36 (0:00:06)

one councel peningo followed by Council

Chris Pettingill
0:34:43 (0:00:55)

greenla just looking at page 23 of the report and the non-local Workforce chart when I look at this there's only about seven months in 2025 with a higher non-local Workforce than what we apparently have now so to my mind you know we're you could say you know this is a proposal to deal with six or seven months above you know sort of what we're used to now am I misunderstanding something or has the project been delayed and you know the in community Workforce is lower or you know what is the sort of I guess can you help me understand those numbers are we really just doing all this to deal with that six or seven month burst in

SPEAKER_03
0:35:38 (0:00:35)

2025 thank you for the question through the chair we did request an updated chart from foris concerning Workforce numbers and we were told that this is a reflective of the planned Workforce over the duration of the project that being said if there's delays that occur then obviously those numers numbers would potentially shift and yes the lodge is essentially being constructed to address construction through to the end of 2026 with the peak in the summer of 2025 Peak number of workers

Chris Pettingill
0:36:14 (0:00:27)

sorry okay so does that I'm just I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around because it seems like there's a need for six months starting in 2025 but a three-year tup seems like a huge buffer plus you know they can apply again I guess is there a reason it does that speak to the level of uncertainty they have about timelines and so on or I'm just wondering why there sort of for me there's a bit of Disconnect there

SPEAKER_03
0:36:41 (0:00:20)

so there was no there's typically applicants don't specify as a timeline Associated they apply for a three-year tup or they apply for a tup which can be granted up to three years so it is up to council's discretion in terms of the duration of the permit they didn't specify three

Chris Pettingill
0:37:02 (0:00:35)

years okay and I'm just wondering I saw dry Camp which i' missed somehow my understanding is that's a new condition I'm just wondering if staff can speak to when the change to dry Camp happened and is that the only sort of recent change in terms of you know looking at what's come out of the wood fiber gender and safety plan in terms of what's you know Community expectations around Comm Community safety and addictions and managing those sorts of things is that the sort of

Eric Andersen
0:37:37 (0:00:04)

only

SPEAKER_03
0:37:42 (0:00:37)

change sorry foring Clarity I'm not aware of a fully dry Camp I understand that there would be a licensed L Lounge I believe there would be I think an allotment of up to two drinks available for workers so I'm not sure where that information specifically came from but the camp itself as in the accommodation quarters that's dry is my understanding so the only way the only place that workers would be able to enjoy a beverage would be in the license Lounge okay to

Chris Pettingill
0:38:19 (0:00:50)

clarify all right so I mean I guess that's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around is there seems to be a number of recommendations and or and or outright project changes in Wood fiber to deal with what wood fiber has acknowledged our you know significant Community safety concerns that come with these camps but I'm not seeing the same sort of plans or Provisions with this Forest Camp has the proponent provided any sort of plans about how they expect to come up to a similar I guess set of expectations that wood fiber has set or have they addressed the disconnect in how they View Community safety versus what wood fiber seems to be saying is

SPEAKER_03
0:39:10 (0:02:40)

necessary thanks through the committee through the chair so the project is required to have a gender cultural safety plan much like the wlng project it's one of the conditions the gender cultural safety plan is not required until closer to occupancy so therefore it is in development foris however is taking steps right now to engage with District staff as well as other interested parties local organizations around gender cultural safety and has initiated mitigations to address the project overall and those includes some of the similar mitigation that wng has taken including providing Medical Services to all project workers including Mental Health Services it also includes training and that training I believe is similar or if not the same to the training that's being offered by wlng around gender cultural safety they have also Squamish Nation Elder and residence program to support cultural awareness they are working on a orientation package for all workers or heavy orientation package for all workers and we'll be building additional modules into that as my understanding as a result of the gender cultural safety work that will be ensuing they also have a public phone line with an email and address and website for any Community complaints but they also have one that is being managed should there be any concerns with harassment or other matters that's being managed by a third party so a reporting line essentially yes there are several mitigations that they are working on currently and then as they complete their gender cultural safety plan in preparation for Planned operations of the or occupancy of the tww it's my understanding they will Implement addition measures and that information was included in some of the attachments that were provided within the council report in particular there's a letter that's from foris from I think a couple months ago that details out the interm measures while the gender cultural safety plan is being

SPEAKER_11
0:41:50 (0:00:05)

developed is that a followup or one more and then one more or

Chris Pettingill
0:41:56 (0:01:25)

I've got lots more you can cut me off but start with a followup okay yeah go ahead so yeah I did see all of that but I guess for those sorts of things it's not clear that to me that those are different than or how that's different than what's you know happened at the other industrial camps where the impacts to you know addictions and sexual violence have continued and so I'm not clear what the difference is what the actual changes are but also again in terms of gender and safety the wood fiber gender and Safety Committee their recommendations and support for a floel you know fundamentally limiting worker access to the community seem to be a key piece which I don't see here and I'm not seeing an explanation of why that's not necessary and then the dry Camp versus The Damp Camp is another element where you know it seems to be a fundamental difference which again out of the wood fiber their promotions for justification for the flotel and the you know committee members when they spoke at the public hearing about why a flotel was important versus a different sort of housing again those were Elements which were it seemed to me deemed critical but aren't addressed here why those somehow aren't an issue here will we get an explanation or is there an explanation of why that was necessary for wood fiber but it's not necessary for this work

SPEAKER_03
0:43:22 (0:01:31)

Camp thanks for the chair I can't answer why one was necess necessary versus the other wasn't other than to say that the project is following the condition that's set out in the environmental assessment certificate which specifies the need for a gender cultural safety plan this is the I believe the second plan that's ever been created under the eao and my understanding from eao staff as well as the applicant is that this is a new process and they don't have a lot of data basically to substantiate whether or not the development of such plan actually has an positive impact to mitigate adverse effects relating to projects of this nature and that will be part of this process the actual mitigations in terms of what's contained within such plan or the measures that are being proposed or implemented currently by the project I can't answer specifically whether or not there's research that says that they work or not work or how they are different from other measures however that is something we can go back and ask the applicant for and try to understand how these differ from the operations at other camps if that's council's direction committee's

SPEAKER_11
0:44:53 (0:00:13)

direction more gender related do okay one more and then I want to go to miss Glend because she's got an update for us going back to councelor Hamilton's question and then councelor greenw go

Chris Pettingill
0:45:07 (0:01:02)

ahead okay thanks and I'm just wondering about our requirements to enable parking you know there's a lot of community concern or I've heard a lot about the amount of potential traffic and vehicle dependence and so on this is requesting is there a reason we can say we couldn't say you know if you need a another yard to store a pipe or you know you want some beds for workers that's fine but you know the level of parking is not acceptable so we would Grant permits without with much less parking and that's what we is there a reason why we couldn't do that and that in theory manages a lot of the potential traffic issues and so on if you know just vehicle parking wasn't provided there

SPEAKER_03
0:46:09 (0:01:14)

through the committee it's my understanding that parking is a requirement for operation of the camp and that Fortis requires that there's a parking spot available to every worker they did explore I believe something like 10 other locations to house worker Vehicles however the district informed them that a tup would also be required for that parking area they decided not to go through that process and I believe in addition there was other challenges associated with many of those locations so that is why at this time parking is proposed both at the lay down yard and the temporary Workforce accommodation site staff have talked extensively with foris about you know provision of services such as a shuttle out of region in a regional shuttle to bring workers from outside of the region to the site and that is something that they are willing to consider to put a shuttle in use and try to promote that shuttle and encourage workers to use the shuttle in place of their personal vehicles however prohibiting personal vehicles by workers is not something that fordes can do

SPEAKER_11
0:47:24 (0:00:00)

Paul go

Chris Pettingill
0:47:25 (0:00:24)

ahead I guess I would like with the you know how is this different or why you know wood fiber is able to manage our thinks these things are important in requirements but for us isn't I guess the parking and vehicle access is another piece to add to that list I would appreciate falling out because it seems another inconsistency with what wood fiber is sort of said as necessary or possible thank

SPEAKER_11
0:47:49 (0:00:11)

you thanks Council Pettingill and I will come back around you Miss glende going back to councelor Hamilton's question about security costs go ahead

SPEAKER_08
0:48:00 (0:00:29)

yes thank you through the chair I did pull up the letter that I received from the ministry of Public Safety and solicitor general specifically policing and Security Branch and last August they clarified in terms of policing costs that it is a provincial unit that's responsible for facilitating peaceful lawful and safe public assembly and addressing unlawful conduct and then the letter goes on further to indicate that it's provincially funded not the

SPEAKER_11
0:48:30 (0:00:03)

proponent follow up on this mayor Herford

Armand Hurford
0:48:33 (0:00:17)

yeah thank you so that recommended condition around the policing costs are what exactly how are we how is that established and how do we ensure that that's infor appropriate and enforced

SPEAKER_03
0:48:51 (0:00:54)

appropriately thank you for the question to clarify there's a couple of conditions that are in the proposed in the attachment as proposed conditions for the permit that are associated with costs and those more relate to the planning aspects as opposed to enforcement so in particular around you know Emergency Management security planning it's more about integration of our integration of the proposed Lodge and lay down should it be issued integration of that information into the districts plans and our CMP plans so it's to ensure that you know the fund there's funding there to for Staffing time to be able to provide that work that needs to get done in particular with Emergency Management such as evacuation plans and so

Armand Hurford
0:49:46 (0:00:15)

on okay thank you that's I found this discussion really helpful and that Nuance certainly did not jump off the page so I think that should be flushed out a bit a bit further in future documents but that's very helpful thank you Council

SPEAKER_04
0:50:02 (0:00:21)

Greenlaw thanks through the chair as I recall in our last conversation about this tup there were a number of concerns raised by Council around gender safety impact number of personal vehicles and liquor licenses on site among others and I just want I was just wanted to ask staff to please clarify if there have been any changes in those

SPEAKER_03
0:50:24 (0:00:57)

regards the last time we had a disc discussion in Council there was yet to be an eao amended certificate so the biggest change is the requirement for a gender cultural safety plan which considers in its development the code of conduct and Camp operations and how to mitigate any sort of gender cultural safety impacts associated with Camp operations so that's the most significant change we haven't heard different we haven't heard from the applicant in terms of changes to their policy around the liquor license or other mitigations that you mentioned in your question other than there was an update on traffic and parking that was contained in the letter

SPEAKER_04
0:51:21 (0:00:29)

sorry building on some of pettingill's questions I was just wondering are we going to get any information around the regulations foris will have on site for instance any restrictions on personal vehicle usage and off hours if you know that there will be any I'm not sure enforcement of the two drink work policy and how they're going to do that how they intend to in control the flow of people in and out of Camp will we be getting those pieces of

SPEAKER_03
0:51:51 (0:01:37)

information thank you through the chair in terms of prohibiting worker movements off duty that is not something that Forest is considering doing or within its guess it's ability when workers are off work they are off work and they will be members of the public like anybody else residing in spamish even if it's temporary they will have use of their personal vehicles they will be encouraged however to use the shuttle Transportation there is a staging area for shuttles from the tww to the lay down by proposing some of the conditions on the T it might help to restrict or prevent workers from parking right at the lodge and essentially ensure some compliance with the use of shuttles the shuttles my understanding is they will Pro be provided into the downtown area of Squamish and other key commercial areas of Squamish for use by project workers when off duty and they'll be regularly scheduled that information is available it's in the management or in the management plans with regards to the tww operations the Lounge use and the liquor license is described in brief however there's an entire process they need to go through a permitting process to allow for that license Lounge so they will need to follow those rules and with

SPEAKER_04
0:53:28 (0:00:11)

those okay thanks and then will the issues that are reported to the respectful Community conduct line become public information or be shared with the

SPEAKER_03
0:53:40 (0:00:33)

district my understanding is that they are held in confidence and that's the point of the line is that it's a thirdparty administered line and to protect the confidence of those calling in I do believe however though they will be providing General reporting around you know the number of calls and when those calls occur but the details of them likely not perhaps at a very high level they would report those

SPEAKER_11
0:54:13 (0:00:05)

out follow up one more one more and then I'm on the list and we'll go back around okay

SPEAKER_04
0:54:19 (0:00:55)

thanks I was very surprised to see that the topics requiring further impact assessment and or mitigation table did not mention men my biggest concern which is the direct correlation between these camps and gender violence as indicated by the 2019 murdered and missing women indigenous women report and I'm very much uneasy about this Camp being within easy walking distance of our new University campus and its dormitories in the proposed permit conditions there is mentioned that the eao authorization of the gender and cultural safety worker code of conduct will be needs to be authorized prior to the issuance of any permit for the Tua TW from the eao but what opportunities will Council and the district have to actually give like relevant feedback to this and will it be ready before we're discussing the issu of the

SPEAKER_03
0:55:14 (0:01:14)

tup the gender cultural safety plan is not part of the land use discussion or decision before Council it would be more focused on the impacts on District services or infrastructure that being said it is the district is a part of the process with the eao in terms of a requirement through its conditions to engage with the district in the development of the gender cultural safety plan and to receive feedback foris has been openly collabor collaborating with staff to first of all talk about mitigations that it's already implementing with to its project workers that are within the district now and they are working to set up more discussion around collaboration in the development of the plan the plan however will be developed by a qualified professional but taking the feedback and consultation of various organizations including the district so is my understanding that staff will continue to work with the applicant on the general cultural safety plan outside of this process relating to the

SPEAKER_11
0:56:29 (0:00:45)

tup thanks thank you have a few questions and then we'll come back around to Mayor Herford followed by councelor Pettingill with some follow-ups Mike lir the forest BC vice president of major projects in LNG has indicated that building permits for the temporary worker accommodation will be needed by November 15th and working from the assumption that a temporary use permit is issued for the worker accommodation before the Labor Day week Is it feasible for staff to issue the required building permits by that date of nove November the 15th and so just looking to determine if November 15th deadline indicated by foris is achievable from a staff

SPEAKER_01
0:57:15 (0:00:35)

perspective can't really comment on whether that is feasible it will depend on the quality of the application that is submitted and our current capacity in terms of what else what other permits are ahead in line we do have capacity finding from fordus that supports review of the project but again often it's iterative process of going back and forth to make sure that it meets our B requirements and the code where it's clickable

SPEAKER_11
0:57:51 (0:00:01)

yeah go ahead

SPEAKER_03
0:57:52 (0:00:15)

and if I may add to that staff are already in discussion about what the requirements would be so at least forus has an understanding of what those applications requirements would be based on our capacity agreement with

SPEAKER_11
0:58:08 (0:00:38)

fores okay so we've learned that if the worker accommodation temporary use permit isn't issued a mix of local accommodations and accommodations outside the district would be used this apparently will mean daily busing to construction areas now letter receiv a few days ago from foris indicating contingency plans involving First Nations is underway so my question does this mean pipeline workers will not be provided living out allowances which would then pave the way to book hotel rooms rent homes live in secondary

SPEAKER_03
0:58:46 (0:00:54)

Suites is not my understanding that they wouldn't be provided living out allowances without in absence of a temporary Workforce accommodation the conditions wouldn't likely require that they don't provide a live out so they likely would provide the live out allowance and my understanding is there would be a mix of workers coming from coming from outside of the region Lower Mainland predominantly bust two areas some increase in the number of workers that are already residing here within the district and also transport up the Indian Arm for work that are working on those sections of the pipeline no further or specific details have been provided other than that at this time by the applicant and I don't want to misspeak in terms of providing specific numbers but I was told some

SPEAKER_11
0:59:40 (0:00:34)

increase okay thank you and my final question for now recommended condition is no disposal of Wastewater at The District's wastewater treatment facility unless otherwise permitted by the District of Squamish so I'm curious to know is this because our current facility can't handle expected volumes due to the current limitations of the facility and will the upgraded wastewater treatment facility handle the expected project related volumes once that project is completed which is hopefully fairly soon

SPEAKER_03
1:00:14 (0:00:33)

thank you for the question exactly that right now the wastewater treatment plant can't receive the volumes but it's more than just simply the capacity of the plant but it's also the egress of the site so how the vehicles would be required to move in and out of the site is a consideration and the traffic that would be generated potentially to and from the wastewater treatment facility at this time however staff are working with both applicants and will continue to do so to determine whether or not it's feasible in the

SPEAKER_11
1:00:48 (0:00:03)

future thank you mayor

Armand Hurford
1:00:51 (0:01:44)

Herford thank you the culture gender safety impacts and that's the plan I think is a really important piece of this but I wonder about makes me think about if we're having the ea is developing this there's a lot of context pieces here that are extremely challenging and I find that the mapping provided which I know is provided from the proponent often shows this and misrepresents this whether it's intentionally or not as being quite removed from the community way off the side and it sort of cuts off the neighborhood that's 100 meters away which is surrounding capu so I know that the that the context is not lost on our staff here but this is an area that I think is really critical to under to understanding cap you has had Representatives at meetings I've been at on adjacent matters we'll say and I've heard them describe their population their student population as a as vulnerable population and that's how they approach that so their participation here I think is critical to whether this is appropriate or not I know it's mentioned that there's no Road ACC no vehicle access will be provided do we have the ability to request that the you know foot or bike access or something is mitigated in some way because it's right it's right

SPEAKER_01
1:02:35 (0:00:27)

there staff can take that comment back it's a tricky one because it is something that you know it is like I said it's a it's a heavily regulated project and the gender safety plan is something that the environmental assessment office is reviewing an and approving so it's something that we can take back in terms of access to and from the

Armand Hurford
1:03:03 (0:01:13)

site okay and I guess it related to that is the is visitor access to the site or facility or nearby I know there's lots of places to go where folks seem to enjoy going down by the waterfalls to have a fire and a and a drink and it's right there so I do think it's actually quite critical how if this category isn't spoken to then it's in my mind it'll be it's a challenging land use like it this management piece is just so critical to that similarly in a temporary use permit is it appropriate to include pieces around the construction and or implementation of the of the use itself I know these are sort of two can be two different things but we know that the Work Camp isn't going to you know fall from the sky so there's going to be this phase where in this is Road there's Road building there's actually moving the pieces in and so on is that something that can be or should be is that appropriate to be included in a temporary use

SPEAKER_01
1:04:16 (0:00:32)

permit yeah again it's it depends whether it's something that the district has jurisdiction over so we don't own any roads out there in this area it's mostly on crownland or resource roads and so we have to have solid rationale why construction phasing should be part of this temporary use permit

Armand Hurford
1:04:49 (0:01:47)

conditions okay so and this is where I think that yeah i' would be curious to know where that is because I think that you know objective 311a is permit temporary uses to provide short-term opportunities when consider when considered appropriate by Council without negatively affecting existing businesses or surrounding properties in terms of noise lighting parking traffic or other impacts and to me that's critical and particularly with the access as proposed which is directly through the Squamish Canyon site as to who owns the bridge or the road and all the those pieces I leave it to staff to figure out how we achieve that but again the two pieces in my in my this round of questioning are about exactly that on both on both sides one lives I think could be would be addressed through that EA process around the gender cultural safety plan but whether that's enough or not I have a hard time I don't know how to weigh that into my decision but this particular piece on the south end access I think is critical to whether this is an appropriate use and I suppose the question coming from that is the use like having a temporary Workforce accommodation and then how that's accessed to me these are tied together they're not as they're not separate there's been talk of other ways to access this site that might eliminate some of these challenges but are do these need to be tied together or the use is okay but we need you to find a different

SPEAKER_01
1:06:36 (0:01:44)

access the through the chair the access the issue with the access in this case is that you know none of it is within the district's jurisdiction we don't have roads out there the highway is not in our jurisdiction and neither is the m forest service road so there are I would say there are constraints around access and in a normal course we you know just about anything is subject to council's discretion on a temporary use permit it's like a mini resoning in this case because there's this other levels of government with jurisdiction it's quite narrow in terms of our ability to consider things we normally consider and certainly access is one of them because we don't have any infrastructure so the impact on District infrastructure you know is very limited in this case and that those are the considerations that we have to look at when we're thinking about access there is a different issue of impact on the tourist commercial and that is something that staff are still evaluating and have asked the applicants quite a while ago to work together with the Squamish Canyon to see if there's a resolution to its impact we are not out there suggesting to the applicants you know we should do this or that and then putting that as a condition we are relying on the parties to find if there's a

SPEAKER_03
1:08:21 (0:00:33)

way just to add to yonis Mr Banis comments the road use permit has been granted by the bcer so that permit is for the use of that for the construction of the pipeline project as a regulated oil and gas activity so the ACT essentially is what is the jurisdiction essentially that applies to the road to the

SPEAKER_11
1:08:54 (0:00:16)

access just before you go quick time check it's 3 minutes after 3 we still have a presentation on the lay down yard I want time for comments time for questions on lay down and comments go ahead mayor

Armand Hurford
1:09:10 (0:00:17)

yeah thank you for that so the when you say the road is that there's lots of Road roads involved in this I just want to clarify this is Powerhouse Springs Road down and over the bridge to the start of what would be the new proposed Road is that what we're talking about in that last

SPEAKER_03
1:09:28 (0:00:11)

statement yes so the access to the camp has there's a actual Road use permit that's been provided by the bcer

SPEAKER_11
1:09:39 (0:00:06)

yes thanks mayor Herford next I have councelor Pettingill followed by councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:09:46 (0:00:32)

Hamilton so going back to that chart there's an 8mon window or six to 8mon window with more folks in the community not in a camp or sorry the non-local workforce there's an eight-month Windows six eight-month window where it's higher than we're already experiencing I think you said that there isn't the gender and safety planning and so on is in progress so that means the proponent has pushed ahead without this planning without these mitigations in place is that is that

SPEAKER_03
1:10:18 (0:00:30)

accurate the project continues with or without a tww essent ially the condition associated with the gender cultural safety plan is tied to the tww so the requirement is related to the occupancy of the temporary Workforce accommodation the applicant is continuing with the project and introducing mitigations during its planning phase for the general cultural safety

Chris Pettingill
1:10:49 (0:00:29)

plan but I think I guess the point I'm getting at or just making sure I'm correct in that you know the community has expressed I think we've seen quite strongly concerns about sexual violence and addictions and so on and the proponent has just pushed ahead and without the camp without any of these mitigations in place and you know I understand they have sort of the provincial and federal I guess ability to do so but that's what they have done right they're not waiting is that

SPEAKER_03
1:11:19 (0:00:04)

correct that is my understanding they're continuing with the

Chris Pettingill
1:11:23 (0:01:07)

project okay and just I guess what gives Steph confidence that you know given what we've seen with some of the I will say I guess difference of opinion or different direction from The Province and interaction on the wood fiber project and concerns the district has raised and the ability for the district to do its what we require in terms of our governments governance that you know if we sort of proceed on good faith that okay we approve the camp and we assume that significant or sufficient mitigations will be in place for Community safety and so on what gives us confidence that will actually happen given what we've seen recently in terms of some of the rest of the you know the broader context like do we have confidence that the province would actually listen to what we have to say in terms of a gender and safety plan we said this is important this has to be there can we rest assur that they would do it or and it's a bit of a you know I think I know what the answer is

SPEAKER_03
1:12:31 (0:00:57)

but staff have been collaborating with the environmental assessment office staff on the development of management plans as well as with the applicant and the review of such plans the general cultural safety plan is another plan where there are requirements and we can you know continue to dialogue and work with the eao and the applicant and ensuring that the district's considerations concerns feedback is integrated all plans are Evergreen in nature meaning that they can be adapted and changed in particular if new impacts are identified or new mitigations are required I can't answer as to you know the outcome because we don't know yet but the dialogue with the eao between staff has been positive and we will continue that

SPEAKER_11
1:13:29 (0:00:02)

dialogue yeah one more just one more please

Chris Pettingill
1:13:32 (0:00:33)

yeah just want to follow we had a response about funding for sort of extraordinary RCMP operations but just in terms of you know what the data seems to show about industrial work camps and you know increases in sexual violence and addictions and so on which I would assume is more local General policing to handle is that managed as part of the tup is that managed as part of our capacity funding how does that piece get calculated and managed

SPEAKER_11
1:14:06 (0:00:00)

Miss Glend

SPEAKER_08
1:14:06 (0:00:18)

thank you through the chair that has been managed already through the Current financial plan and the future financial plan in terms of forecasting our CMP needs and essentially using taxation to cover that

Chris Pettingill
1:14:25 (0:00:08)

make it quick yeah so but not taxation from the utility from foris that would be Community taxation is paying for

SPEAKER_11
1:14:34 (0:00:06)

that okay councelor Hamilton and then I'd like to move on to the presentation for the laydown area please

Andrew Hamilton
1:14:40 (0:00:30)

thanks very much a quick question I think in the report staff said that the security for at the amount of a security deposit they would look towards Council for a suggestion or for advice on that is that will staff be bringing forward a suggestion on what things have been considered or are you looking for Council to consider those things and give a give a

SPEAKER_03
1:15:11 (0:00:44)

suggestion one of the pieces of feedback that are included as part of staff's assessment is a need for a more understanding around the restoration plan and that would form the basis for a security amount and this would be more in line with landbased temporary use permits as opposed to other applications that Council have recently reviewed and we would we would request that the applicant provide more details so that we would be able to look at potentially what the costs would be if the district was required to cover them and that would be the recommendation that staff would come back with for council's consideration

Andrew Hamilton
1:15:55 (0:00:13)

and site Rehabilitation does that include any potential remediation of any contamination of aquifer 398 that is that included in that whole

SPEAKER_03
1:16:08 (0:00:10)

conversation yes that would consider any sort of remediation that would be required as a result of any potential contamination to the to the

SPEAKER_11
1:16:19 (0:00:35)

site great okay I'm just going to do one quick scan any final burning got to ask them questions before we move on to the lay down area Council good answer yes we will tie it all together at the end Miss Mulligan are you good to go with the next presentation on the laydown area

SPEAKER_03
1:16:55 (0:11:27)

okay following slides present information concerning t74 for the proposed construction lay down yard t74 proposes a lay down yard to support project construction activities for the EGP project and parking requirements for personal vehicles personal vehicle use by tww residents the proposed yard is a triangular area located on private land owned by the scalish nation with a plan disturbance of approximately 10.5 Acres it's bounded by the existing Fortis BC NPS 10 right away to the South the existing overhead power line right away and approv combined Forest BC NPS 24 nps1 right away to the north and with Powerhouse Springs to the east the site of buts the projects a planned permanent right of way and lies within temporary working space allotted to the EGP project part of its EIC to the northeast of the valley Cliffy neighborhood within the do the District of Squamish the site is intended to serve as a hub for coordination and support of construction activities which primarily occur to the east within the stamas and Indian river valleys as well as the hixen creek Valley in addition the yard will serve as a hub for construction activities to the west of the yard location and along Finch Drive an industrial way towards the tie-in with a proposed tunnel situated in the BC rail lands in an additional area also owned by the Squamish nation of approximately 2. 6 Acres on the east side of Powerhouse Springs Road is proposed for the development as a parking area for the Project's use temporary buildings and other structures planned for mobilization and setup in the proposed yard are included in the image on the slide I apologize it's difficult to make out the detail there buildings and structures will be modulized and do not require permanent footings or foundations and will include waste and recycling receptes temporary single story set on grade module build buildings for day-to-day use of project management staff self-contained sanitary trailer facilities including washroom facilities for project personnel with onboard freshwater and sewage storage set on grade temporary building design and fuel storage and pumping facilities in self-contained skid mounted units complete with double wall tanks and emergency shut off Provisions temporary Warehouse facilities included interconnected converted Highway trailers and repurpose sea containers for heated and un heated dry storage of project tools and consumables and additional arched roof Shel shelters you can see a layout of the proposed yard in the land the lay down yard access and use report that was attached with council's report package with the exception of planned connection to the existing above ground power North which the point of connection assumed along the northeastern corner of the yard site subject to ongoing discussions between foris and the service provider no other service connections are anticipated at the yard location potable water would be trucked in for site use and sewage trucked out as with tup 73's assessment objective 31.1 a and policy 31.2 B of the district's ocp were considered the table provided on the slide outside outlines this criteria and Associated information from the yard permit application proposed yard is planned to be active throughout all the phases of the project during the offseason typically winter months the yard will be shut down and all access points secured to prevent trespass parcel is currently zoned rs1 residential par parcel is currently vacant and no use is occurring at this location the ocp land use designation for this parcel is resource and Recreation and residential neighborhood the surrounding Parcels are zoned for Resource rs1 Residential rm5 multi-unit residential and P3 Park the surrounding land uses our residential neighborhood parks Greenway Corridor and Recreation resource and Recreation the yard backs under the valley Cliff neighborhood and the potential for impacts related to there is potential impacts related to noise lighting and dust which have been identified and a temporary construction yard environmental report was commissioned by foris and supplied to the district of Squamish District staff have since determined the yard is exempt from DPA 1 Environmental requirements and therefore not reviewable by District of Squamish as part of both the eao and the Squamish Nation environmental assessment approval process several conditions are outlined related to environmentally sensitive areas the yard is required to obtain a water supply system construction permit to operate and sewage holding tank permit from VCH the TP is proposed for up to three years with the possibility of renewal if construction is delayed and as with t73 ocp objectives 9.2 e 10.14 f and 14.4 a see speak to employer provided housing for Industrial Development projects and reducing Wildlife interactions and are relevant to this application similar to the information presented as part of staff's assessment of the tup 73 the following summarize items from table six of the committee's report are identified as requiring further assessment Andor mitigation and would either be provided as part of feedback to the applicant following today's feedback from committee or included as a conditions part of any draft perment to be considered by Council and the conditions sorry the assessment includes considerations relating to Emergency Management and security planning traffic management and site restoration and all comments and recommendations that you heard as part of tup 73 are with the exception of the high geological assessment are consistent with the material presented as part of tup 73's consideration staff have developed a summary of draft permit conditions for council's feedback which have been included as part of attachment five in council's agenda package an overview of conditions have been outlined on this slide and proposed conditions include prior to issuance conditions of the permit once issued and conditions concerning the administration of the permit bards have advised staff that should t74 application be unsuccessful lay down facilities would be expanded at the BC rail site upon approval by the district for the Project's use additionally it is the intention of fortisbc to use the yard for limited activities already authorized by the BC and Squamish Nation as part of its application foris BC has offered the District of Squamish Community benefit 200 of totaling $250,000 additional details concerning BC Forest BC's Community Investments have been included as part of the agenda package for council's consideration so I'm going to continue this presentation before receiving feedback if that's okay just to wrap up the presentation so I'm just going to summarize implications related implementation steps and recommendations in relation to the two TPS under consideration so if in terms of budget if the temporary Ed permit applications are successful and the worker accommodation project and construction yard proceeds service agreements building permit fees would be levied legal fees associated with the application would be the responsibility of the applicant staff time associated with the tup processing requirement is funded through capacity funding and tup fees and in terms of cross Department collab ation the major projects industrial department will continue to advance the application at the direction of council by coordinating with other departments including engineering Planning Development Services and operational staff from an engagement perspective to inform the community per policy the project was posted to the district's development showcase on the district's website additional information has been provided on the district's project page and a development sign has been posted at the site comments have focused on recreational access and Public Safety staff referred both applications to the squ sh louette Regional District a response was received citing that the slr's interests are generally unaffected staff also outreached to Squamish Nation staff concerning tup application 73 for the temporary Workforce accommodation to receive feedback staff from the Squamish Nation indicated that the nation approved a temporary Workforce camp and the 7 Hector expanded size as part of its environmental assessment process and reved related application material as part of that process additional staff Outreach was completed through email in-person meetings and phone conversation a video concerning the regulatory approval process regarding the temporary Workforce accommodation is available via link as part of commit committee's agenda package Forest BC has provided their engagement log to staff and can be found in attachment six this log gives a summary of Engagement efforts by the proponent from 2019 until now General comments received from interested parties include concerns regarding potential traffic noise dust Interruption to business and Community safety resulting from the proposed laydown inwa operations following the committee of the whole meeting the applicant would proceed through the stages outlined in table seven at council's discretion and conditional on council's approval at applicable stages as per section 4941 of the local government ACT public not notice is required prior to the consideration of tup 73 and 74 a public hearing however is not required under the Local Government Act and is normally at the discretion of council notice requirements are outlined in section 4942 of the Local Government Act the application is currently posted on the district's development showcase where public feed where a public feedback mechanism is also available electronic feedback options would be included in any public notice published in accordance with Section 49 4943 of the LGA all written feedback received from members of the public in advance of consideration of the application would be included in council's agenda package based on feasibility staff would aim to publish the agenda material related to council's consideration of this application at least one week prior to any meeting date given the multi-jurisdictional context associated with permitting of utility projects such as the forest EGP project staff recommend that public input be solicited through written feedback with earlier report publishing dates rather than a public hearing process and then the following are recommendations to guide feedback and discussion concerning the application and it's to receive each of the reports and for staff to work essentially with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues and with that I'll close staff's presentation

SPEAKER_11
1:28:22 (0:00:14)

great thank you and Council for the next couple minutes I'd like to focus on the laydown area and then once we get the laydown area specific questions taken care of we can go more broad mayor

Armand Hurford
1:28:37 (0:01:25)

Herford thank you in the in sort of the alternative if the T wasn't deemed appropriate by Council and that use was to occur at the BC rail properties do we have any way of understanding the impact of that as far as I'm thinking I know that traffic impact assessments are incredibly comp complex and expensive but the impact would be would it would have