Committee of the Whole - 14 Feb 2023


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.i: Temporary Use Permit TU00074 - FortisBC Construction Yard
3.ii: Temporary Use Permit TU00073 - FortisBC Workforce Lodge
iii: Downtown East-West Cycling Connection to Victoria Street Bridge
iv: 40480 Tantalus Road Mixed Use Development Proposal Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 2660, 2019
v: Year Two Review of the Short-Term Rental Regulatory Program
vi: Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) Resolutions and Outcomes
4: TERMINATION
Welcome, Staff Reports - Temporary Use Permit: FortisBC Construction Yard
0:00:00 (1:09:29)

At the council meeting, Fortis presented their temporary use permit applications for a work accommodation site and a construction laydown area. The 10. 5 acre site includes additional 2. 6 acres for parking and the uses include marshalling area, temporary offices, storage of materials, refueling, waste management. Concerns included fencing, landscaping, noise, light pollution, trail connectivity, traffic, waste disposal, and the estimated traffic between 100-250 vehicle trips daily. Public comments included questions about the missing piece around the area regarding the use of motorized recreation vehicles on weekends, the discrepancy between the projected number of vehicle trips and the capacity of the lot, fuel storage and use on site, and the need for independent environmental and GHG impact studies. The Council will make a decision based on the information provided and will go through a peer review process if the technical staff feel uncomfortable. The noise bylaw was questioned to see if it considers the cumulative effect of noise from an industrial use close to a residential area and the lighting at the particular site was questioned to see if it needs to be lit 24 hours a day or if the dark sky policy can be used to regulate the effect on the adjacent neighborhood. The Council also discussed the need for a shuttle, the Traffic Impact Assessment, and the cumulative impact of two applications. Finally, they discussed the need for risk assessments, the duration of the Temporary Use Permit, the visual buffer along Powerhouse Springs Road, and the business impact of the project on Squamish Canyon.

Chris Pettingill
0:00:02 (0:02:40)

good morning everyone Holland squallen Quest welcome to the Squamish Nation traditional territory I'm councilor Chris Pettingill acting mayor for the month of February and I will be chairing the committee of the whole for Tuesday February 14th 2023 at 9 30 A.M the first order of business is the adoption of it of the agenda can I have someone move that please councilor French second by counselor Stoner anyone opposed motion carries so the first order of business is a couple Fortis temporary use permit and I just want to um share a bit of a preamble to help us focus on the topics ahead so I'd ask everyone to please note that today's committee meeting is to introduce and provide initial feedback onto temporary use permit applications put forward by Fortis one for a work accommodation site and one for a construction lay down area while both are related to the wood fiber LNG and Forest pipeline projects Fortis is requesting temporary use permits for a camp in a lay down yard not a pipeline and not an LNG facility therefore today's Council comments and consideration will focus on the specific applications for a construction yard and a Workforce accommodation site and with that I will turn it over to Mr prahalad prahlad to introduce the topics for us please go ahead

SPEAKER_20
0:02:43 (0:08:56)

good morning mayor and Council my name is Rish prahalad planner with the community planning department today I'm here seeking Council feedback for a temporary use permit for a construction yard for the Eagle Mountain pipeline project there are several areas that staff are looking for council's feedback including noise and lighting Trails traffic landscaping landfilled and water issues and undergrounding Power the Eagle Mountain pipeline project will expand a portion of the Fortis BC existing natural gas transmission system the proposed pipeline will parallel the existing Force BC pipeline to the wood fiber liquefied natural gas site it is important to note that the project was approved by both the BC environmental assessment office and Squamish nation in 2016 and the district has no role in the overall approval of the pipeline project construction on the project is anticipated to take place between 2023 and 2026. the subject property is a triangular lot owned fee simple by Squamish Nation located Northeast of the valley Cliff neighborhood at the intersection of the mam quam forest service road and Powerhouse Springs Road tp-74 is proposing to allow an industrial use in the rs-1 residential Zone which is intended to accommodate low density residential development with Municipal Water and Sewer services the official community plan land use designation for this area falls under resource and Recreation which supports a wide array of public and commercial recreation uses as well as resource development the parcel is currently outside the district's growth management boundary post yard will be approximately 10.5 acres in size with an additional 2.6 Acres on the east side of Powerhouse Springs Road to be used as parking for the project the proposed yard is planned for development in early 2023 and will be active truck throughout the entire gas line development project the yard will be shut down during the winter months and all access points will be secured to prevent trespassing content intended uses for the yard include a marshalling area for construction Crews at the start and end of each work shift morning briefings for workers temporary offices for project management warehousing and storage of project materials equipment and equipment vehicle and Equipment refueling and waste management the yard will be active six days a week Monday to Saturday 7 A.M to 7 P.M with Sundays being a day off for construction Crews resulting in minimal activity for the site several areas of concern have been raised have been raised by District staff during the review process perimeter fencing is proposed as a primary physical component of the security plan the clear Zone will be maintained on both sides of the perimeter free of obstructions vegetation or objects this clear zone is not aligned with dpa3 guidelines which require Landscaping features to reduce negative visual impacts of chain-link fencing adjacent to roads there will be a 60 meter vegetative buffer along the southern edge of the site to reduce the impacts of noise and light pollution for the adjacent residences however there is no plan for Powerhouse Springs Road the lack of a visual buffer along Powerhouse Springs Road may have a negative impact on recreational users and visitors to the Squamish Canyon project the trail Network Around The Works Yard provides a shorter connection to the recreational users to and from the PowerHouse Springs Road area as well as trails that end on the Northern connector Trail more information is expected from Fortis on impacts to Trail connectivity the traffic management study for the mam clam area is currently in draft form and is being reviewed by District staff the purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Project's management considerations while trying to mitigate interactions between the public and the project the traffic management strategy is very high level and non-committal at this time they plan to upgrade the manquam FSR but do not provide details it is unclear whether proposed upgrades will also include Powerhouse Springs Road a traffic impact assessment is currently in draft form and being reviewed by District staff the purpose of this study is to review the background traffic conditions within the project area and estimate the traffic impacts generated by the pipeline construction and construction yard at this time waste receiving facilities have not have not been determined however should waste be disposed of in the Squamish landfill the high volumes of waste anticipated do not take into account The Limited lifespan of the Squamish landfill and the impact on this on this lifespan noise levels will be at the highest at the start and end of each work shift due to work due to vehicle movement site activities have been planned to ensure compliance with the district to Squamish noise bylaw additional noise that is anticipated to occur during the two-month period of site clearing and Grading if the application is successful to help the applicant will be required to provide noise surveys on a regular basis to monitor noise levels Fortis is proposing to connect to the district's power lines to power their construction yard this line is successful susceptible oh man this line is susceptible to outages as it runs through a vegetated area owned by Squamish Nation it is recommended to underground this section of power lines proposal calls for 420 parking stalls on the east side of Powerhouse Springs Road opposite the construction yard access to the site will be from Highway 99 mam clam forest service road and Powerhouse Springs Road multiple access points are planned for both the manquam FSR and Powerhouse Springs Road in accordance with Flynn row engineering guidelines to ensure traffic moves freely to limit impact of non-project traffic the traffic management strategy is very high level and non-committal at this time they plan to upgrade mamquam FSR but do not provide details it is unclear whether proposed upgrades include Powerhouse Springs Road there are concerns about dust road conditions sight lines and noise as well as traffic impacts on the road Network mostly the mamquam FSR and Highway 99. regardless of whether the tup is approved there will be significant impacts on the road from increased traffic recommendations include clear commitments around road maintenance including dust control and a clearly defined scope including methods and frequency the traffic volumes are projected to fluctuate given the seasonal nature of pipeline construction traffic will be mainly between the proposed Lodge and construction yard with anticipated traffic volumes between 100 and 250 traffic vehicle trips from the construction Workforce per day in the morning from 7 A.M to 8 A.M and evening from 5 to 6 PM approximately 40 vehicles are expected to proceed West to Highway 99 to the to the Tunnel construction site with the remainder of the vehicles traveling East along the FSR to pipeline work sites in the Indian River Valley at this time it is unclear how much Wastewater is being produced at the construction yard waste receiving facilities have not been determined however should waste be disposed of in the Squamish landfill the high volumes of waste anticipated do not take into account The Limited lifespan of the Squamish landfill and the impact on this lifespan this project requires a significant amount of consultation with internal departments external stakeholders and the province following this Committee of the whole meeting the application would be expected to proceed through the following permit stages conditional on Council approval at applicable stages the public information meeting Council decision on tups development permits for dpa-3 form and character GPA 11 Wildfire as well as building permits thank you at this time I welcome any comments or questions

SPEAKER_10
0:11:39 (0:00:05)

okay Council counselor French

John French
0:11:44 (0:00:29)

thanks chair wondering if staff can indicate for us if Fortis has talked it all about a plan B if the temporary use permit in question is denied and if they have had conversations with staff what have they indicated is Plan B

SPEAKER_20
0:12:13 (0:00:08)

through the chair staff has asked for this about Plan B however they have not provided an answer at this point

John French
0:12:22 (0:00:03)

thanks chair

Armand Hurford
0:12:26 (0:01:13)

mayor Herford thank you the staff report outlines sir the current uses of the of the area and how our community sort of flows through there and I understand that will be impacted regardless of the in some way regardless of whether there's this yard here or just the just by the nature construction of the pipeline in the area however I found there seems to be missing a piece around that particular area on a we particularly on a weekend is used for unloading sort of motorized recreation vehicles so dirt bikes quads all that stuff happens sort of right there and that General capacity that area to do that would be affected here and it's something that's I didn't see highlighted in the report is that something that staff's considered or discussed with Fortis and there's a plan is that what that overly large 420 parking spot area is intended to be used for as well or is that I'm just trying to understand how these things fit because it's a busy spot on a weekend for that User Group in particular

SPEAKER_20
0:13:39 (0:00:20)

through the chair that is the concern that staff has brought up Fortis has told us that um Camp workers will not allow be allowed to bring their own recreational vehicles and um we're still having discussions about the traffic impact assessment and those will be addressed in that study

Armand Hurford
0:13:59 (0:00:56)

so okay so the I'd like to make sure that user group and that sort of load on that area is highlighted from the beginning they won't those folks looking to do those activities won't just go away it's all need to be considered somewhere in the in the planning of this and I guess that leads into that the 420 parking spot parking area is rather substantial and doesn't jive with the numbers that I'm seeing in the traffic sort of assessment so is that exclusive use or is that meant to solve the problem that I've just highlighted if it's their exclusive use then the numbers I'll need some explanation as to why there's a discrepancy between the projected number of vehicle trips and the capacity of that lot

SPEAKER_20
0:14:56 (0:00:16)

through the chair it is forces plant to provide a vehicle parking space for each bed provided at the camp so there are 576 beds provided out of Camp so the construction yard will work as a over four parking space for the camp as well

Armand Hurford
0:15:13 (0:00:06)

foreign that is correct thank

SPEAKER_10
0:15:19 (0:00:04)

you counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:15:23 (0:00:45)

thank you through the chair when this Squamish Canyon project came through there was a lot of discussion around the primary leaseholder on the road I guess for lack of I can't remember what the exact terminology is so the road is owned by Ministry of lands forests and then they basically like there's a primary leaseholder on it which I can't remember who it is but there was a lot of discussion around then whose responsibility is it to maintain the road so I'm just curious has there been conversation from Fortis to the other parties who use this road around what means what maintenance looks like and who then becomes the primary user given the amount of vehicle traffic that they're proposing

SPEAKER_14
0:16:09 (0:00:57)

through the chair yeah so memquim FSR that section that they would be using is currently the primary Road use permit holder I believe is the term is currently Atlantic Power and it's been acknowledged by Fortis that they would become the primary user once the project is up and running or at some point the tricky part about Powerhouse Springs Road is that it's not a designated forest service road so there is no primary Road use permit or there is no Road use permit associated with that currently Atlantic power I believe between them and other users I believe one being LaFarge has they have some agreements in place but nothing formalized and so that's something that we have been discussing and hasn't been rectified at this point

Jenna Stoner
0:17:07 (0:00:43)

all right thanks for having those conversations and then just following up on mayor herford's comments about the parking so helpful to know that some of the Overflow parking is expected from the camp here in both the reports it speaks to having a shuttle between the two temporary use permit sites but with the amount of parking on both locations it feels like that is not actually going to be used so is there a way that through the temporary use permit process we could actually confirm that a shuttle would be provided and used as opposed to personal vehicles

SPEAKER_20
0:17:50 (0:00:22)

to the chair currently there is a shuttle being proposed in the traffic impact assessment that report is saying that only 10 percent of personal vehicles will be used to access town or get up and down that manquem FSR however Staff feel that's a gross underestimate and will be that will be conveyed to the applicants

Jenna Stoner
0:18:13 (0:00:04)

okay that is thank you

SPEAKER_10
0:18:17 (0:00:04)

okay councilor hand Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:18:22 (0:00:40)

thanks very much and through the chair one of my concerns about this pro project are the impact of protest action happening along that fire service road have Fortis I didn't see any consideration or mitigation measures or plans for how to manage protest action has Fortis acknowledged that at all with staff

SPEAKER_16
0:19:03 (0:00:38)

um through each other that is something that so the safety portions of this whole project are being addressed in the management plans that are not attached to the temporary use permit applications that is something we can certainly raise before this it's going to be a concern whether the work accommodation side or the lay down area goes ahead because for this will have to be accessing the pipeline project through the forest service road anyways so that's a really good comment thank you

SPEAKER_10
0:19:42 (0:00:03)

Council Greenlaw

Lauren Greenlaw
0:19:45 (0:00:41)

thanks I guess following up on counselor Hamilton's question the ocp talks about tups and when they should be administered and one of the mandates is that they can't negatively affect existing businesses or surrounding properties in terms of noise lighting parking traffic or other impacts and I'm not sure how we're gonna work around that like how is Ford is actually going to minimize those impacts I haven't seen any action plans for that is that going to be more like expanded upon in their actual tup application or is this kind of what we're going to see

SPEAKER_20
0:20:27 (0:00:36)

through the chair so the construction yard does back on to residential neighbor to an into a residential neighborhood so they have proposed a 60 meter buffer along that southern Edge and they will be providing a baseline noise survey and then having noise surveys throughout the entire project and they have also provided several noise prevention measures in their management plan but those are still being worked out at this point

Lauren Greenlaw
0:21:03 (0:00:19)

and just to follow up on that um there was also mention in the ocp the TP section of the ocp about security deposits and restoration plans and are those will those be proposed and expanded upon in their tup application

SPEAKER_20
0:21:23 (0:00:14)

through the chair so there will need to be a restoration plan written into the tup they have provided several options at the moment but we haven't decided on which one will be written into the tup at this time

Lauren Greenlaw
0:21:38 (0:00:03)

and have there been conversations about security deposits as

SPEAKER_16
0:21:41 (0:00:19)

well security deposits would be a standard condition for issuing the permit we haven't had any discussions yet on what you know that security amount should be it will be based on probably the restoration plan of what it costs to put the site back together

SPEAKER_10
0:22:00 (0:00:03)

Council Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:22:04 (0:02:01)

thank you chair the traffic impact assessment that staff have related that is under review currently presumably it will address the highway 99 intersection as well as the man from forest service road in the power Springs Road and the map group the intersection at the highway involves stakeholders also at site B which is this is a matter that has come up came up for discussion during our review of the Squamish Canyon project and its traffic impact assessment issues on patterns of use and at that intersection on the mapcom forest service road we have several stakeholders my question to you to staff is are we assured that the Fortis team and our ours has properly identified these stakeholders one of them happens to be the Squamish Community Forest recently granted for part of its chart area using this road in the stuamus and lower memcom we have three board members with us today on Council representing the District of Squamish and we are informally aware of fortis's activities but we've not been formally referred there's been no formal referral our Consultants working in our engineering for the Squamish district and Squamish Nation joint venture happened to be the same Consultants working for Florida so that's an advantage and that's how we are aware of what's going on however there are other stakeholders the Squamish Nation as a forest license we have slail watus business arm working in the refuse we have BC Timber sales among others so my question is can we assure ourselves that the Fortis team has properly identified all of these stakeholders and that does include for the map report the sorry the highway intersection as well

SPEAKER_14
0:24:05 (0:00:43)

three chair the traffic impact assessment as you mentioned is still under review at this point its scope is not identifying key stakeholders so much as traffic loading and impacts so I think where that would have to follow or fall under is the traffic management strategy which is a different document and a different plan that speaks more holistically at this point I can't speak to the status of what you're requesting I'm wondering though if the owners served fresh can speak to what staff can do in terms of coordinating with Fortis or requesting it for us

SPEAKER_16
0:24:49 (0:00:11)

thank you I think we can take this comment away and see how we can build the stakeholder engagement into the into our process

Eric Andersen
0:25:00 (0:00:26)

thank you and for the clarification also of the traffic management strategy that will I suppose a follow from necessarily the impact assessment and address its issues my second question chair concerns the new road proposed that's the 1.2 kilometers of road that will be constructed proposed to be constructed from the vicinity of the PowerHouse gate between that and the new security gate and counter

Chris Pettingill
0:25:27 (0:00:04)

Anderson that's the next topic I believe we're just on the lay down yard right

Eric Andersen
0:25:31 (0:00:06)

now excuse me thank you chair I'll hold that one

Chris Pettingill
0:25:37 (0:00:44)

okay I will take an opportunity and then I'll go to counselor or mayor Hereford I should say are we required to accept fortis's um assessments like their environmental report their traffic impact study or could we require as part of the application process that they fund us hiring someone to do those sorts of analysis and the reason I ask is my personal experience with Fortis is that um when they receive feedback and so on it doesn't necessarily end up in the reports or it's not accurately portrayed in the report so I quite frankly don't have a great deal of trust in environmental reports and traffic assessments from Fortis so is there a mechanism by which we can require funding to do those assessments ourselves we can have greater confidence in what we're using to make our

SPEAKER_16
0:26:22 (0:00:52)

decisions um we can we can request for this for those resources we can't require them Council has to make a decision at the end of this process based on all the information provided normally what we how we approach these sort of situations is we rely on our technical staff to make a decision whether you know they think that the reports are inadequate or they lack the expert specific expertise required and in those cases then we'll go to a into a peer review process I don't know if we're there yet with the traffic assessment or the or the environmental assessments but that's our normal process so if we at all feel uncomfortable with the information that we see usually we rely on our staff to make the call

Chris Pettingill
0:27:14 (0:00:37)

okay thank you and then just following up on the light and sound and I guess as in particular the noise pollution we have noise bylaws in terms of hours when you can make noise and so on are we required to have that as our standard to evaluate this I guess in my mind one of the other techniques is to mitigate sound impacts is just what land uses we allow where and so is it reasonable for us to say yeah you're not starting until 7 A.M but it's still too close to residential and that's not acceptable like are we can we go sort of Beyond The Noise by law in evaluating this

SPEAKER_16
0:27:52 (0:00:17)

we can and that would be very appropriate I think because you know this is a temporary use permit it's not the zoning is not in place yet and there is there are residences adjacent to so the temporary smarter could go above and beyond the noise boiler

Chris Pettingill
0:28:09 (0:00:34)

okay thanks and then have has Fortis clarified there's a little bit in there about fueling and fuel tanks and so on do we have Clarity on the magnitude and the amount of fuel being stored and what sort of fuel and proximity to waterways and what the risk is there I guess I have a great deal of concern about fuel stores there and does that really need to be part of this or can we say hey go use one of the refueling stations in town or something for your fuel needs and this really isn't the place where we want to store and provide a whole bunch of refueling

SPEAKER_20
0:28:44 (0:00:13)

through the chair um those questions about the refueling have yet to be asked to the applicant about what exactly is being stored and how often vehicles are being refueled

Chris Pettingill
0:28:58 (0:00:47)

okay so two more quick questions I hope is looking at our community climate action plan and you know we've been looking for no gas covenants on a lot of rezonings when they come forward Fortis with the lay down yard so one of the attractive things is they can tap into water lines or sorry Hydra lines but then they speak to gas-powered water pumps and other gas powered infrastructure on the site can we require sort of more consistent with our CCAP that with this and the Hydra line there that this is electric power and you know maybe a backup generator of some sort but strictly for emergency or are we somehow required to allow them to use gas or diesel or so on to power these things

SPEAKER_16
0:29:45 (0:00:19)

Council has a lot of discretion it's a temporary use part of the process so those sort of standard zoning conditions could be applied here I'm not I don't know if they're practically speaking if there would be possible for forests to implement but there are conditions that could be established

Chris Pettingill
0:30:05 (0:00:38)

okay and the last one for now Lexus your hand counselor Stoner it looks like they won't be doing as much activity in the winter if I understand the report correctly but there may be snow removal required to the degree they are these aren't on our priority routes they seem to be very eager to keep going are they permitted to do their own snow clearing on these roads and sort of related to that if they can do it on these roads could sort of the general public do snow clearing on public roads around if they wish to or what's the sort of capacity or expectations around snow clearing

SPEAKER_14
0:30:44 (0:00:39)

through your chair because these roads are not District roads that doesn't apply so it's a Ministry of Forestry with the forest service road and then Powerhouse Springs Road is kind of not a road so Fortis will be able to maintain it as required or will be required responsible to maintain as required if they are the primary user to answer your second question technically no snow clearing on Municipal property cannot be performed by just anyone because it is a municipally owned Road and we have rules and responsibilities and liability associated with that

Chris Pettingill
0:31:23 (0:00:04)

okay thank you I'll go to accounts mayor Hereford apologize

Armand Hurford
0:31:28 (0:00:29)

thank you dust in the report there's mitigation measures mentioned for the road but not the yard or the parking area and I was curious um if staff had asked the questions around that and what the plan was to mitigate the dust of this now large open area instead of the sort of lightly forested area that's there now

SPEAKER_20
0:31:57 (0:00:10)

through the chair the dust mitigation plan has not been finalized yet but it will include the parking lots as well as the yard as well

Armand Hurford
0:32:08 (0:00:43)

thank you and in the considerations actually in other areas of this of this project it's been challenging to get proponents to work together to figure out the cumulative effect now we're looking at two tups are we are is Staff confident they're getting the enough information to be able to assess the cumulative impact of both of these applications and that's probably further complex made more complex by the fact that you know one might move ahead and not the other and just how have you been sort of dealing with that or how do you intend to deal with that aspect of these applications going forward

SPEAKER_20
0:32:51 (0:00:02)

could you repeat that question again

Armand Hurford
0:32:53 (0:00:37)

so both of these projects both of the tups that we're going to be discussing today have impacts just in their on their own but the cumulative impact of these how is that being assessed and we've already heard some what ifs this doesn't go and what if that goes and how are you sort of working through those complexities as you look at things like traffic is we'll start with the traffic assessment I suppose this one drive the other like how are you managing that

SPEAKER_14
0:33:31 (0:00:47)

through your chair yeah so we're looking at them all taking into consideration I guess you could call worst case so what if they all occur and that's the parameters that we use to run these days so the traffic impact assessment takes into account both to UPS as well as any other development we anticipate going forward so for example the canyon project fully up and running so we take into account all of those numbers the use of the wastewater treatment plant is another example where we're reviewing it under not just fortis's impacts but also wlngs with their flotel what if those like what if both of them are utilizing our wastewater treatment plant as an example

Armand Hurford
0:34:18 (0:00:29)

thank you that get that's um that's the kind of information I was looking for there in one of your earlier one of your slides in your presentation you're speaking about the undergrounding of the power lines are these the same lines that we've had challenges with keeping our the pumps running is that the same area through the chair yes correct so would that be considered a legacy piece of this sort of after the fact

SPEAKER_14
0:34:48 (0:00:02)

correct yes

Armand Hurford
0:34:50 (0:00:59)

okay thank you and the noise bylaw Casper penegal mentioned asked a question around if we could you know find different standards for this particular use here it is quite close to the to the community on Cherry Drive in particular and I was curious around if the noise bylaw considers the cumulative effect because loud noise going late one time but within the noise bylaws well it's within the noise bylaw but if it's for the term of the of the project or the tup in this case I think that's entirely different than sort of a one-off that's allowed so does that bylaw contemplate that I haven't gone deep in the noise bylaw but it strikes me as a maybe a lesson Ideal tool to address this sort of industrial use next to a residential

SPEAKER_16
0:35:49 (0:00:29)

area the noise pilot and again I haven't looked at the noise well specifically with this question in mind it doesn't consider cumulative impact it sets standards and I don't think it sets different standards for you know whether a project is short or has a long time frame and that's where I think the temporary's permit conditions could be handy

Armand Hurford
0:36:19 (0:00:34)

okay so with that in mind I know this is our first you know our first look at these at these two because there's the next topic coming up as well at what point would it be would staff be looking for those specific recommendations and is that what we're looking for an outcome today or is that a after future assessment of the of the of the plans that will get into that level of that specific with the requests

SPEAKER_16
0:36:54 (0:00:11)

I think any and all feedback is relevant today if you have something very specific you know we're happy to receive that feedback and see how we can build it into the process

Armand Hurford
0:37:06 (0:00:53)

okay thank you on the similar to the noise bylaw the light lighting regulations I know that actually Squamish Canyon was one where there was concerns around the light pollution from particularly I believe it was during events at that site which is a ways down that road I think over a kilometer you can correct someone will correct me with that but it's a fair distance away so in this for this use here what would the lighting look like is this something that for work safe standards needs to be lit 24 hours a day or is it something that we can use some of our you know our dark sky policy and so on to regulate what that what that looks like and thus the effect on the adjacent neighborhood

SPEAKER_20
0:38:00 (0:00:11)

through the chair the applicants haven't provided a lighting plan yet however staff has asked for one to see exactly what they are proposing for that site

Armand Hurford
0:38:11 (0:01:20)

thank you I think light and noise are the are two things that I'm quite concerned about with this location being so close to the adjacent neighborhood and I'd really like to see they're I suppose their proposal and how that lines up with our existing policy and given the nature of the sort of sighting of this proposed use here I think those are things I really need to have a handle on to see if we can if it'd be appropriate to adjust so if those regulations are sufficient or if we need to sort of add a layer for the if this is to go forward so and I think there's a there's a blind spot here with the parking for the recreation users in that in that area sort of as they mode shift if you will from coming up from Point South to unloading and going to recreate and that needs to be reflected in the plan here's somehow I have a longer list but I'm going to wrap my mind around it so I don't go on for too long and I'll come back

Chris Pettingill
0:39:31 (0:00:13)

okay thank you I appreciate that and I just we've got I think about 15 minutes left in this topic and the next one might have even more feedback so if we can try and keep things succinct and keep this moving along I'll go

SPEAKER_10
0:39:44 (0:00:01)

to counselor Stoner now

Jenna Stoner
0:39:46 (0:00:16)

thank you see the chair two questions and I'll just make some comments and then ah we can I can wrap myself up in the next implementation steps staff haven't referenced the requirement for DPA one which I was a little bit surprised about can you speak to why this doesn't apply

SPEAKER_16
0:40:02 (0:00:41)

here that's a great question so DPA one out of the termination is it only applies in the work accommodation site this site is directly related to pipeline construction and Fortis has a general exemption that the responsibilities for environmental assessments are with the province and the federal government and the only place where that's that doesn't stand is with the work accommodation site which we haven't fully for this and this year not on the same page I don't think at this point but that's where we drew the line

Jenna Stoner
0:40:44 (0:00:36)

interesting thank you for that context I would maybe push back on that and say maybe our DPA one does still apply but you know better than I would my other question on the next steps it says that this project requires significant amount of consultation with District departments external stakeholders and the province I'm just curious do we actually do referrals for tups to external stakeholders so I think this is getting a little bit to councilor Anderson's point will we do a direct referral to slrd it is on Squamish Nation land but to Squamish Nation like it would be helpful I think as part of this process to have direct referrals on this application so when does that happen

SPEAKER_20
0:41:20 (0:00:05)

through the chair that process is already ongoing

Jenna Stoner
0:41:26 (0:01:54)

all right and so those particular entities slrd Squamish Nation have been great thank you all right generally speaking thanks to staff for the report and I think the list of concerns that you continue to raise are I resonate with all of them and I think that they're all important issues to continue to press the applicant on I think going forward things that really continue to raise particular questions for me are the road traffic and parking so that is a black box still and the proponent is going to have to come forward with more information before anybody can make any sort of determination of what is appropriate but the idea of having that much traffic going up there seems ridiculous to me and so there'll have to be a lot of management plans in hand if that's really the number of vehicles and parking that's going to go in there the noise issue is not feasible for me at this perspective at this point as it's proposed 7 A.M to 7 P.M six days a week for three years right adjacent to a residential neighborhood is I don't think is going to fly with our community we'll wait until we hear public from public information meetings but um the proponent would I think be well suited to start to address that issue sooner rather than later same goes with lighting and I just want to re-emphasize staff's feedback on the waste management plans is also critical as we all know our landfill is close to being filled and we have a very significant price tag coming in terms of expansion and we don't need to accelerate that we've been putting a lot of effort into trying to reduce our waste and so making sure that they have a strong plan in hand before this comes back for consideration for tup application would do them well I think in their process I'll leave it at that thank you

SPEAKER_10
0:43:21 (0:00:04)

hey I have counselor Greenlaw and then councilor Hamilton Council green law

Lauren Greenlaw
0:43:25 (0:00:12)

thanks I just wanted some clarification on the volume again so it's 102 to 250 shuttles per day for the employees yeah going to and from

SPEAKER_20
0:43:38 (0:00:01)

that is correct

Lauren Greenlaw
0:43:39 (0:00:00)

okay

SPEAKER_20
0:43:39 (0:00:05)

as well as kind of like support Vehicles going up and down from the yard to the camp

Lauren Greenlaw
0:43:44 (0:00:05)

yeah like is that including the construction vehicles that are gonna have to be coming in with supplies

SPEAKER_20
0:43:50 (0:00:01)

yeah that is correct

Lauren Greenlaw
0:43:51 (0:00:10)

okay because like if you do the math on a maximum of 600 workers on 100 to 250 shells a day that's like three people per shuttle

SPEAKER_20
0:44:02 (0:00:13)

through the chair the 600 workers is at the peak in 2025 based on their numbers they're expecting roughly around 300 to 400 workers kind of at the lower end

Lauren Greenlaw
0:44:16 (0:00:59)

right and that that's supposed to be concentrated in the morning and the evening right because so again that's an extremely low density of people per shuttle like maybe we can get them to tighten that up a lot as well to reduce the traffic impacts the other thing and I'm going to say this for the next up as well is um I I really think the district should be asking for risk assessment for all their exercises on site like including social environmental and safety risk assessments it's very common to do that in the exploration industry and Mining to have a risk assessment and then also have proactive and reactive mitigation strategies as well and I would like to see that as well as chain of accountability of who's going to be responsible when something happens for this construction yard it would probably be you know like diesel leaks or something like that but anyways that's what I got

SPEAKER_10
0:45:15 (0:00:04)

okay counselor Hamilton and councilor Anderson

Andrew Hamilton
0:45:20 (0:00:37)

thanks very much the history of this project is obviously something I'm catching up on as a new counselor but one of our mem one of the members of our community shared with me a letter that they received in November 2021 that detailed fortis's plans that included a temporary workspace near the end of Finch Drive and the one we're currently discussing has that is that temporary workspace near the end of Finch Drive no longer under discussion or is are we ever going to see that somewhere else do you

SPEAKER_12
0:45:58 (0:00:04)

know

SPEAKER_16
0:46:03 (0:00:09)

through you chair we haven't seen a proposal for temporary workspace at the end of fetch this is the only one we're looking at

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:12 (0:00:42)

okay thanks my second question is on and this is about council's what the district can do with tup is not about the proponent so in the ocp we say tups may be issued for a period of three years and may be renewed once we are also we also have the authority to define the duration of the tup if we were to define a tup for a duration of one year would we then be able to renew it for another three years should we feel it's okay or is there a total limit on the duration of a

SPEAKER_16
0:46:54 (0:00:27)

tup the limit is three years and Council can issue a TP that's shorter than that I think if concerns were addressed and Fortis was in the position to get a tup I think council's recommendation would be to start with or staff's recommendation with you to start with shorter dup see how it goes before expanding it

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:22 (0:00:18)

so just follow up to make my question clearer I did not ask the question clearly can we issue three one-year tups sequentially or we're limited to a total of two tups

SPEAKER_16
0:47:41 (0:00:31)

the limit is you can only renew it once what has the way in practice this goes sometimes is you can renew a temporary's permit which is exactly the same as the one that was approved sometimes in the you know applicants will change the application and then that allows Council to issue a new temporary experiment which is a bit different than the old one

SPEAKER_10
0:48:12 (0:00:02)

yeah you want to follow up on that counselor stunner

Jenna Stoner
0:48:14 (0:00:07)

yeah just to clarify when we renew a tup does it have to be for the same length of the initial tup

SPEAKER_16
0:48:22 (0:00:03)

no it just can't be more than three years

SPEAKER_10
0:48:26 (0:00:03)

thank you I'll go okay councilor

Chris Pettingill
0:48:29 (0:00:01)

mayor Herford

Armand Hurford
0:48:30 (0:00:18)

what's a bit different like it's all right could you or do you have an example maybe for that not to pick up on the I don't want to pick on the on the wording but I just want to make sure that we all understand this piece and what the options are may be available to a TP

SPEAKER_16
0:48:48 (0:00:22)

applicant so it's a great question and I think the two principles that are normally used is the use changes so there's an expansion of use that wasn't there before or the area has changed of the TP so the area has expanded or contracted thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:49:11 (0:00:05)

okay I will go to counselor Anderson myself and then I'll go around the room for closing comments

Eric Andersen
0:49:17 (0:01:45)

yeah sure this will be my closing comment if that's all right a brief comment on what our observation on one of the outstanding issues and concerns and I'll quote from the staff report the lack of a visual buffer along Powerhouse Springs Road may have a negative impact on recreational users and visitors to the Squamish Canyon project I imagine the Squamish Canyon project may have a variety of concerns regarding visual quality over the long term and during the construction as well potentially however I'd just like to point out that on the west side of paroho Springs Road on left-hand side as you're going up the district we have proposed over during the last term I think maybe even a little bit before that before I came on Council there was a camping committee looking at camping pressure issues and identified this as a potential Campground the district May have some interest in developing and Squamish Canyon project also is interested to develop camping on the same spot in collaboration potentially with the district so we should look at the future of this road and the uses on both sides and I'll just also point out that last year for the first time in memory Coho were spotted in the ditches spawning Coho along power Springs Road the ditch there is a tributary of the little storms just something to keep in mind but I'd suggest that the visual impact of chain link fencing may be over maybe we're going a little bit too far here considering maybe what is the future there is we do need camping areas and this is one that has been highlighted has having good potential so that's part of the recreational use it might be expected in the future so let's consider the full picture in the long term of what that rule will be used for us regards visual impacts thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:51:03 (0:00:33)

so a couple quick questions then I'll go around the room and this has come up a little bit we'll ask first they talk about using the lay down yard as a muster Point in coordination with the work camp but if most of the people are going to be in the Work Camp and there's a ton of parking there why do they need a muster point at the lay down like why can't you just have one muster Point sort of one large parking area have they explained why they need a second place for everyone to collect with all their vehicles

SPEAKER_20
0:51:36 (0:00:12)

through the chair that question hasn't been asked to Forest yet and they haven't provided an answer as to why the lay down yard was chosen as a muster point

SPEAKER_14
0:51:48 (0:00:39)

just I'll just add excuse me kind of along the same lines as counselor greenlaw's comment about the numbers not quite adding up that's something we're seeing with the numbers they're providing for the two tups it's not fully making sense to us at the staff level either so that's feedback that we're giving back to them to try and understand um how are they using the two sites or how are they planning to use the two sites and exactly why do they need that muster station looking at the numbers and why they don't quite line up I think part of it is that some staff will go directly to the work site and some will have to go to this works yard for various reasons but once again that's something we're digging into

Chris Pettingill
0:52:28 (0:00:38)

okay thank you and I guess just wondering is there is it a requirement in our process that requires this to be two separate tuts or is this something they've chosen to do and it seems that you know the rationale between one and the other is their close proximity it seems like there's an interrelationship and it's not clear that if only one is granted it actually makes sense like it they may only make sense if both are granted so I'm just wondering if staff sort of can explain why this was two and not just one tup and you know maybe if they're just interrelated that's a decision we have to make about both when that decision Point comes but just wonder staff can speak to that

SPEAKER_16
0:53:07 (0:00:35)

briefly Fortis does apply for two tups and they have the right to do so and it's practical to have two separate tups because they're two separate locations the T piece kind of go with the land and so yeah if they were two sites together then it would make sense to have one but in this case they're separated although I agree there's a lot of relation between the two and maybe one doesn't make sense if the other one doesn't go ahead oh yes and the owners are different the landowners

Chris Pettingill
0:53:42 (0:00:09)

okay thank you so I will go around clockwise I guess for final comments and if we can keep it tight we've got three minutes councilor Hereford

Armand Hurford
0:53:52 (0:04:08)

I don't know if I accept your challenge in the three minutes but I'm having a hard time with the as I as I know staff is with the parking and traffic and issues here just really understanding actually what's proposed the math on the number of spots doesn't quite add up with the private vehicles but then these folks performing the work will need to be in other work specific Vehicles whether it's to transport themselves or to do the work and none of those numbers are driving so I think that we've already heard that from staff but I think really understanding this is crucial so we can make a properly informed decision and that I'm assuming is probably a comment that'll hold for the next topic as well I do think that the undergrounding of the power lines is essential we know that that's been problematic and in various pieces of interacting with the project as a whole I've been looking for something that's a legacy so that right there is the first glimmer of that in my opinion and could improve our resiliency of our water supply which I think is could be a win for the Q for the community I do think that the screening to Powerhouse Springs Road is important this project will also this site stands to be the main visuals presence of this large project in our in our community and I think it would serve them well and us if that wasn't purely industrial or prison-like in nature which is sort of How It's been shaping up so far so I think there's work to be done there whether it needs to whether there's a different level that could would be appropriate here than our current guidelines you know that could be something that all that said the noise and light here right next to the residential area is a major concern to me and I don't know that what level of mitigation is even possible and if what is possible is going to be enough to provide me personally and our community with Comfort having this use in this spot I do accept that there's going to be construction here of the pipeline will move through so that's that area in general will experience disruption however putting in the few hundred meters of pipeline adjacent to the neighborhood is only going to take a fraction of the time of that overall three-year plus that that's being considered for this use I also think that staff would be well served for establishing a contingency number as to both the timing and the number of humans and subsequent vehicle trips associated with the project and my research into implementing these major these major projects and speaking to elected officials along the way the general consensus seems to be take the number of people and the not and the time and double both of them I don't know whether that's that doesn't sound scientific enough for the professionals sitting down that end of the table but that's something to maybe discuss with Fortis in relation to um especially when there's a pressure on timing and throwing more people and more vehic and the equipment that goes with each person at the project to get it over the line at a particular time is something that happens and those considerations I think need to be incorporated into our planning into these pieces anyways I'll I think that's it for me now given that I'll have another chance to comment on this on the next topic thank you

SPEAKER_10
0:58:00 (0:00:03)

okay councilor Greenlaw

Lauren Greenlaw
0:58:04 (0:00:49)

thanks through the chair I do have a lot of concerns about this upcoming tup and I would I would welcome Clarity on the mitigation factors that for the impositions on the residents as well as the recreational users I'd like to know how they're going to mitigate in increased strains on our infrastructure including our Waste Systems and our the road construction that they'll be using the road that they'll be using in addition to the lack of information regarding the risks included with the yard operation itself I'd really like to see what risks they deem will be present and how they intend to mitigate them I'd also like Clarity on the day-to-day operations it seems like there's not a ton of consistent information provided I'd like to know what a what day to day will actually look like thanks

SPEAKER_10
0:58:54 (0:00:02)

Council Anderson no okay councilor

John French
0:58:56 (0:00:30)

French thanks chair I'll take you up in your three minute challenge I think we've had a good discussion here today and some concerns have been clearly conveyed and I think that staff have got some work to do along with Fortis our friends at BC and their subcontractors so I'm looking forward to when this comes back to us in the next stage of the temporary use process thanks councilor

SPEAKER_10
0:59:26 (0:00:01)

Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:59:28 (0:05:13)

thanks very much I too will take up your challenge of the three minutes but I will attempt to summarize um my concerns and some suggestions for the applicant I have significant concerns over the traffic on the manquam FSR that includes impact on the Cherry Drive residents it impacts the residential users and it impacts all of the users of the intersection of 99 and the manquam forest service road including the other users on the other side of the road I'm concerned about the potential impact and management of protest action this is a single entry forest service road with two Bridges this project has a significant potential to attract protest action and that protest action is likely to require RCMP resources when investigating the scale of cost of RCMP resources I learned that the ferry Creek injunction back on near Port Renfrew enforcement of that injunction cost approximately 3.7 million dollars protest action and the enforcement of injunctions is not an inexpensive Venture and I think that we should not be going into this blind like the temporary use permit the temporary nature of the definition of temporary use permit I don't know if it's a coincidence that this project is scheduled to be three years long when our temporary use permit has a duration of three years it I'm concerned what will happen to this project if the temporary use permit expires and the position we will put ourselves in or we will be in if the temporary use permit expires before the project is complete and I'm very concerned about the business impact the impact on the Squamish Canyon will be significant I struggle to see how both projects can coexist they seem I don't see how they can coexist and so my suggestion to the applicant at this time are to consider that no personal vehicles are allowed at the lay down yard or the Work Camp period thereby significantly reducing and you can enforce that by a significant reduction in the number of parking spaces and find another solution a single access point of the manquam fire service for a service road is a concern for me from a protest management point of view and a secondary access point into both the lay down yard and all of the activities up there would be a significant benefit and there are they are putting an access roadway they are there's a right-of-way that's being punched in between the end of Finch and Cherry the end of Cherry Drive I'd like to them to consider that being making that a road access thereby reducing the traffic impact on the manquam fire forest service road and 99 intersection and increasing the ability to manage protest action regarding the Noise by law I think that's been clearly stipulated I think that I don't think that we can expose our residents to noise from 7am to 7 PM for three for admit at least three years I believe the we are very we have consistently requested a nogas covenant on all applications development permit applications and I don't see a reason why we should vary from that in this instance I think that our tup application process has a security deposits and restoration plans and letters of undertaking can be requested and I think our security deposit should be considering potential RCMP costs of mitigating and managing protest I would like the proponent to consider a limited duration to up as this will allow and seriously consider what the impacts of that will be on them because that will allow Council to have control of reissuing of the tup should the applicant not follow through on their commitments and I'd like to find strongly suggest that the applicant find a solution with the impact of businesses we've heard both from the applicant and from the impacted business that they both claim that they're communicating and that the other side is not communicating that clearly means somebody's not communicating and that's not up to the district to moderate that discussion but I'd like to see that discussion happen and a wholesome satisfactory solution be found because we should not be put in a position where we need to choose one business over another thank you

SPEAKER_10
1:04:42 (0:00:03)

Council Stone could be a second chance for comments

Chris Pettingill
1:04:45 (0:03:14)

okay thank you all I'll add some my own I essentially agree quite wholeheartedly with the rest of my colleagues I would say in addition though fuel storage and use on the site is a significant concern for me just reiterate that um to the degree I'm required to rely on Fortis environmental impact studies ghg impact studies and so on I will have a hard time believing them just based on my experience with fortis's work thus far and so the more that Fortis can do to fund us to do that analysis ourselves I would be able to put a lot more weight in that analysis you know I do think our CCAP Community climate action plan and the principles in that are relevant here too so that's you know the ghgs produced by the site and the operations the vehicle dependence all those things I think are very relevant here I think you know it was raised before this has to do a much better job on engagement with this to bring the community on board are to understand and to respond to the community's needs they have consistently done a terrible job on this and so I think that's a piece of finding a solution to tup I appreciate my colleagues notice of the potential for protest action and so on for me it's not just a cost issue I've not I've not been comfortable with the RCMP tactics in what certain territories in Ferry Creek and so I do not want to see a Reliance on that sort of action for the project to move ahead so for me Forest needs to figure out a way where that is not required and I don't know what that solution is it may not be an easy one but something that sort of has that is an inevitable outcome to me is not acceptable I would say you know this is taking up a lot of council time a lot of Staff time I know that Fortis is funding some of the staff time but this is taking up a huge amount of bandwidth we have a number of critical projects and I want to make sure that um this is not you know it's important but it's not more important than everything else so I want to make sure that as a council and as a district we are prioritizing this appropriately with all the other critical stuff we have on our plate and I would finally say that there's a huge amount of information here and in the next proposal a whole lot of stuff to be adjusted a whole lot of feedback I don't personally feel like I'm skeptical that I would feel like I could make a decision the next time this comes back to us from my perspective this is probably going to need a num another Committee of the whole once we've seen a lot of these things addressed and we can digest this I've had feedback from the community that they want a chance to digest this before we have any sort of public engagement of our own and so I think a lot of the responses to the feedback they've gotten that has to come before us and to the public with the chance to digest and then we can maybe come to a decision but for me a decision as a next step is probably not going to result in a favorable decision to force because I just won't have the information to find the supportable at least that's my expectation so I guess with that I would ask staff is there anything you need Clarity on or more information on

SPEAKER_16
1:07:59 (0:00:19)

we've got a fairly long list of issues and concerns that we've taken down I'm happy to read it out to council but I think there was my read on the table is there was consensus amongst the council members about the issues and concerns that need to be addressed

SPEAKER_10
1:08:19 (0:00:02)

yeah councilor I have mayor

Armand Hurford
1:08:21 (0:00:46)

for move I was going to the staff recommendation okay move by with the feedback and the staff recommendation is the council received the Fortis BC construction yard temporary use permit report for information and provide feedback as follows lengthy and thorough and recorded and that Council direct staff to work with applicant to resolve any comments prior to consideration of the temporary use permit yeah with feedback as provided as provided a community hole okay that's well Ms Arthur says that so we'll change it in feedback as follows to feedback provided at this meeting

SPEAKER_10
1:09:07 (0:00:02)

a okay so do we have second

Chris Pettingill
1:09:10 (0:01:14)

here counselor Stoner seconds any discussion seeing none I'll call to question anyone opposed oh sorry all those in favor hey anyone opposed known as opposed motion carries unanimously and on to the next one Mr pralahad I'll let you start the next topic in my apologies Mr for Holland I'll get it right one day

Staff Reports - Temporary Use Permit: FortisBC Workforce Lodge Report to Council
1:09:29 (1:15:15)

At the council meeting, a temporary use application for a Workforce Lodge for the Eagle Mountain pipeline project was presented. The Lodge will be able to accommodate 576 beds with the option for additional 36 beds, with 300 to 600 workers staying there from 2023 to 2025, peaking at 600 workers in the summer of 2025. District staff raised concerns about the lack of details around the proposed shuttle service, workers using their own personal vehicles, and waste disposal. Traffic management strategy is high level and non-committal, and the wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity but does not have an adequate facility to handle the number of trucks. The District has reached out to the communities of Clearwater and Valmont to hear their experiences with worker camps, and Fortis has proposed that all workers stay at the Work Camp. Public comments included suggestions for bussing to control vehicle movements and prevent people from accessing other areas, parking issues, no clear benefit to the community that will outlast the project, consideration of diverse workforce, and accuracy of the information provided. Other concerns included community safety, worker access to the community, use of personal vehicles, benefits to the community, code of conduct, security fencing, an anonymous tip line, environmental assessment, traffic studies, and drug and alcohol use in camp. Mayor Hereford advocated for continued and broad community engagement on the temporary use permit.

SPEAKER_20
1:10:24 (0:10:32)

good morning mayor and Council my name is Rish prahlad planner with the community planning department today I'm here seeking Council feedback on a temporary use application for the workforce Lodge for the Eagle Mountain pipeline project there are several areas that staff are looking for council's feedback including personal vehicle usage worker projections coordination with Squamish Canyon Public Safety and policing resources traffic issues and landfill and Wastewater issues the Eagle Mountain pipeline will expand a portion of the Fortis BC existing natural gas transmission system the proposed pipeline will parallel the existing Fortis BC pipeline to the wood fiber liquefied natural gas site it is important to note that the project was approved by both the BC environmental assessment office and Squamish nation in 2016 and the district has no role in the overall approval of the pipeline project construction on the project is anticipated to take place between 2023 and 2026. the subject site is on a seven hectare site owned by LaFarge Canada in the district of Squamish the site is located within a cleared forestry cut block on relatively flat terrain that is covered in shrub and young tree growth tup 73 is proposing temporary to temporarily allow Workforce accommodation use in the re resource Zone which is intended to accommodate the use and development of land for primary resource activities the official community plan land use a designation for this area is future residential neighborhood which is intended to accommodate future long-term growth needs when the need for additional neighborhood lands becomes evident future residential neighborhoods are not intended to be a source of population growth until substantial development within existing residential land areas has occurred this parcel is located outside the district's growth management boundary the proposed Workforce Lodge is intended to be built and operated by Atco and will consist of a single-story wooden structure complex that is set on wood crib foundations and we'll have a floor area of approximately thirteen thousand five hundred meters squared opposed Lodge will be able to accommodate 576 beds with the option for additional 36 beds based on Florida species work schedule approximately 300 to 400 workers will be lodged at the camp from 2023 to 2025 with a peak of 600 workers in the summer of 2025. several areas of concern have been raised by District staff during the review process these include the lack of details around the proposed shuttle service including pickup and drop-off locations and last call there's also concern around the shuttle being neglected due to the fact that workers will be allowed to use their own personal vehicles while the while the lodge management plan does highlight that the lodge will be able to accommodate an additional 36-person dorm it does not address what will happen if workers choose to live choose not to live at the lodge the primary concern is if workers who choose not to live at the lodge will be provided a living out allowance the management plan also fails to address what will happen if the project is running behind schedule will the deadline be moved or will additional workers be brought in to meet the project deadlines the communities of Clearwater and Valmont both exp both experienced a large influx of people greater than the project numbers provided initially Squamish Canyon has indicated that the applicant has engaged in limited communication around their concerns due to the impacts the workforce Lodge and the pipeline traffic will have on their Road improvements that squamous Canyon has agreed to provide the district is encouraging the applicant to engage with Squamish Canyon to address their concerns their arrival of 300 to 600 workers will have an impact on public safety and policing resources of the community the applicant is attempting to address some of the Public's concerns through terms of reference document which is not finalized and the worker code of conduct emergency response plans for the laws are currently being reviewed by the RCMP the traffic management study for the manquam area is currently in draft form and being reviewed by the by District staff the purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Project's traffic management considerations while trying to mitigate interactions between the public and the project the traffic management strategy is very high level and non-committal at this time they plan upgrades to mapquam FSR and but do not provide detail and unclear it is whether proposed upgrades include Powerhouse Springs Road a traffic impact assessment is currently in draft form and being refuged by Logistics staff the purpose of the study is to review background traffic conditions within the project area and estimate the traffic impacts generated by the pipeline construction and temporary Workforce Lodge staff feels that 10 that the 10 estimate of workers using their personal vehicles to access town on their personal time is underestimated at this time waste receiving facilities have not been determined however should waste be disposed of in the Squamish landfill to Hive volumes of waste anticipated does not take into account The Limited lifespan of the Squamish landfill and the impact of this of this lifespan The Proposal calls for a total of 325 parking stalls as well as a shuttle as well as a bus staging area for approximately eight buses access to the site is proposed from Highway 99 the mam gram forest service road Powerhouse Springs Road and the new proposed 1.2 kilometer site Access Road this road will Route traffic around the district's Powerhouse Springs well field in order to prevent vehicle access to the districts to the district of squamishes water wells and Atlantic Power Station Fortis BC will be removing the existing gate along Powerhouse Springs Road and installing three new security gates the traffic management strategy is very high level and non-committal at this time they plan to upgrade forest service road but do not provide details there are concerns about dust road conditions sight lines noise as well as traffic impacts on the road mostly manquam FSR and Highway 99. regardless of whether the tup is approved there will be significant impacts on the road from increased traffic and recommendations include clear commitments around road maintenance including dust control and clearly defining the methods and frequency the traffic impact assessment is based on an estimate that only 10 percent of workers will be will use their personal vehicles to access town on their personal time staff feels that this is underestimated and recommendations include coming to come to an agreement on realistic numbers and update the Tia as well as parking elsewhere and shuttling all staff into the camp traffic will be mainly between the proposed Lodge and construction yard with anticipated traffic volumes between 100 to 250 vehicle trips from the construction for the construction Workforce per day in the morning from 7 to 8 A.M and in the evening from 5 to 6 pm the estimated number of vehicle trips per day include in 2023 115 vehicle trips per day of which 99 are construction Workforce vehicles and 16 are large support vehicles in 2024 182 vehicle trips of which 159 are construction vehicles and 23 Lodge support vehicles and in 2025 249 vehicle trips of which 217 are construction Workforce vehicles and 32 are odd support vehicles the wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity but does not have an adequate facility to handle the number of trucks that will be required to manage Wastewater from the camp recommendations include upgrading the facilities at the Wastewater management plant at this time waste receiving facilities have not been determined however should waste be disposed of in the Squamish landfill the high volumes of waste anticipated does not take into account The Limited lifespan of the Squamish landfill and the impact of this lifespan the site will be subject to the district's dpa1 environmental guidelines the applicant has provided a site by inventory that meets the provincial guidelines however they will need