Metro Vancouver s On-Site Stormwater Management Baseline. Workshop No. 1 Summary

Transcription

1 Metro Vancouver s On-Site Stormwater Management Baseline Workshop No. 1 Summary July 30, 2014, 1:00 pm 3:40 pm Metro Vancouver Head Office 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC Date of issue: August 25, 2014

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Summary of Outcomes... 2 Next Steps... 2 Appendix A Technical Workshop Agenda... 3 Appendix B Technical Workshop Summary... 4 Appendix C Technical Workshop Attendees... 16

3 METRO VANCOUVER On-Site Stormwater Management Baseline WORKSHOP NO. 1 SUMMARY Introduction As part of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) 2010, Metro Vancouver and its Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) members made a commitment to develop and implement a region-wide baseline for on-site stormwater management. To fulfil this commitment, Metro Vancouver is establishing the baseline criteria for on-site stormwater management ( the Baseline ) in consultation with municipalities, federal and provincial government officials and industry. The Baseline will help to provide a minimum amount of protection to all watersheds in the region. On July 30, 2014 Metro Vancouver hosted a technical workshop for GVS&DD member staff. The objectives of the workshop were to: Confirm the scope of the Baseline; Establish the amount of rainfall that needs to be managed to protect watershed health; Validate the hydrologic zone categories provided in the Baseline report; and Identify appropriate minimum levels of runoff management for each zone. Prior to the meeting, Metro Vancouver sent invitations and background material on the project to Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG) members, the Municipal Environmental Managers Committee, Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) members, the REAC Liquid Waste Subcommittee and representatives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the BC Ministry of Environment. The invitation described the project objectives and contained six discussion questions to guide the workshop conversation. Metro Vancouver staff made follow-up phone calls to committee members who had expressed interest in the project in the past but did not reply to the meeting invitation. Invitees not able to attend the workshop were invited to contribute to the discussion by ing Metro Vancouver by August 11, No additional comments were received via . The workshop was facilitated by Metro Vancouver staff. Kerr Wood Leidal (KWL) Associates was also present to answer technical questions about the draft Baseline report. Page 1

4 Summary of Outcomes Meeting participants discussed a number of topics including volumetric capture, qualitative standards, and hydrological zones. For a detailed summary see Appendix B. The following are the key outcomes of the technical workshop: 1. Variation in climate, topography, geology and ecological needs across the region make defining the region-wide Baseline challenging. 2. The benefits from on-site runoff management with respect to runoff rate control should be more explicitly described in the Baseline. 3. Water quantity management objectives vary depending on the type of receiving waterway (i.e., river, stream, bay). This will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may vary within a jurisdiction. 4. In addition to runoff volume controls and infiltration, the Baseline should elevate the importance of water quality treatment and include qualitative aspects. 5. The focus on simple, practice-based criteria for water quality is appropriate, but these practices should be prioritized rather than all being considered equally acceptable. 6. The Baseline should remain focused on single detached lots (including duplex and triplex) as multi-family lots and other land uses are addressed through Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) and/or other land development processes. Next Steps KWL will incorporate the feedback from the Technical Workshop into a revised version of the Baseline report. Attendees of the workshop will meet again in the fall to review the changes prior to the next phase of consultation. Metro Vancouver will host consultation workshops to discuss the revised Baseline report with municipal staff, federal and provincial government officials, and private sector industry members in the coming months. Page 2

5 Appendix A Technical Workshop Agenda On-Site Stormwater Management Baseline: Workshop #1 Meeting Agenda July 30, th Floor Boardroom Metro Vancouver Head Office 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby Item Time Facilitator/Presenter Lunch & Sign In Project Introduction, Workshop Objectives & Engagement Process 12.15pm 1.00pm Sean Tynan, Metro Vancouver Technical Presentation 1.10pm Laurel Morgan, Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Discussion 1.40pm Sean Tynan, Metro Vancouver Break 2.15pm Discussion 2.30pm Sean Tynan, Metro Vancouver Workshop Recap & Next Steps 3.00pm Team Member Role Organization Robert Hicks, Senior Engineer, Utility Planning and Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Sean Tynan, Acting Manager, Public Involvement Project Manager, Technical Lead Engagement & Consultation Lead Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Laurel Morgan, Water Resources Engineer Consultant (Technical) KWL Consulting Engineers David Zabil, Water Resources Engineer Consultant (Technical) KWL Consulting Engineers Nicholas Danford Consultant (Engagement & Consultation) Context Research Page 3

6 Appendix B Technical Workshop Summary CALL TO ORDER Sean Tynan, Acting Manager, Public Involvement and Robert Hicks, Senior Engineer, Utility Planning and Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades, Metro Vancouver (MV), welcomed participants to the Workshop at 1:00 p.m. (Refer to Appendix C for a complete list of participants.) The meeting recessed at 2:35 p.m. and reconvened at 2:50 p.m. 1. Project Introduction, Workshop Objectives and Engagement Process Mr. Tynan reviewed the process for the meeting and the intent of developing a baseline for rainwater management, noting that the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan included an action that municipalities update their bylaws to implement a baseline standard for rainwater. Engagement to date with local government had been through the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG). Mr. Tynan introduced an overhead presentation titled Region-Wide On-Site Stormwater Management Baseline, Workshop 1 (Technical), and offered comments regarding: Key stakeholders Process: - Phase 1: Confirming Baseline (Summer 2014) - Phase 2: Implementation (Fall 2014) - Phase 3: Reporting & Recommendations (Late 2014 Early 2015) July 30, 2014 Workshop Objectives, to: - Confirm the scope of the baseline - Establish a minimum requirement to protect watershed health - Validate draft hydrologic zone categories and appropriate runoff requirements 2. Technical Presentation Laurel Morgan, Water Resources Engineer, Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers (KWL), referred the meeting to the on-table document Excerpt from Kerr Wood Leidal Draft Report: Region-Wide Baseline for On-Site Rainwater Management, before providing a presentation. 3. Discussion Session The following questions were posted to prompt discussion: 1. What is the appropriate volumetric capture needed to protect stream health? a) Percentage b) Absolute numbers (e.g. 24 mm/day; 1 in 2 year storm event, etc.) 2. What types of streams and waterways (i.e. rivers, streams, beaches, ditches, sloughs) need to be protected by the Baseline? Page 4

7 3. Water quality is not the emphasis of the Baseline: a) Should it be? b) Are there approaches to measuring water quality that can be included in the Baseline? 4. Today, the Baseline is intended for single-lot residential developments, such as single detached homes or duplexes: a) Is this the right approach? b) What other type(s) of development should the Baseline apply to? 5. Does the approach to hydrologic rainfall zones in the KWL report (see Figure 2.2 appended to the report) seem reasonable? a) Is it sufficiently accurate to determine BMPs? b) If not, how could the map be improved? Discussion Sessions The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Response Mr. Tynan welcomed questions and comments from attendees on the information provided and the discussion questions presented. The following questions, comments, and responses are arranged by topic area. a. Stormwater Runoff Quantitative Measures (Volumetric Capture) Can you further explain the sensitivity of the curve shown in the chart Rainfall Depth Capacity versus Annual Capture Percentage, Surrey-Kwantlen (1600 mm Annual Rainfall)? R: There is an upper envelope to the relationship that represents the optimum source control sizing. Many of the source control shapes/sizes, represented by the individual points on the graph, fall below this optimum envelope. Setting a maximum drain time of 4 days in the design eliminates the points farthest from the optimum envelope. The chart shows that a source control optimally designed to capture 40% of the 2-year 24-hour rainfall depth will achieve a 75% annual rainfall capture meaning that 25% of rainfall will result in runoff or overflow from the source control. If designed to capture 72% of the 2-year 24-hour rainfall depth, the source control will achieve a 90% annual rainfall capture (10% runoff). This relationship held for higher (2100 mm annually) and lower (1100 mm annually) rainfall areas which encompass the variability within the MV area. Page 5

8 Can the quantitative volumetric requirements be tailored to the geographic conditions of a jurisdiction? R: Yes. The Baseline provides for the typical scenario and covers a wide range of soil conditions and rainfall amounts for area discharging to streams. There will always be anomalies that require adjustments to the on-site requirements and these need to be handled at the municipal level. There should always be a source control option available that can be used where others cannot. For example, if a hydro geologist determines that infiltration would have negative consequences, the Baseline criteria can be met with non-infiltrating source controls such as harvesting and reuse or storage and slow release. SILG needs to consider if the appropriate criteria has been identified for the Baseline. Metro Vancouver is looking for an approach to satisfy hydrology for lowland and upland urban streams, while also dealing with communities with piped watersheds. It is important to quantify water quality requirements Washington has water quality requirements. R: This project focuses on smaller lots. A lot of requirements in ISMPs or bylaws, in BC and in Washington, apply at the subdivision scale but not the single lot scale. KWL could define a volume to be managed (for water quality). But then there would be two separate water volumes to consider and design for, and this would greatly increase the complexity of the baseline. Runoff quality improvement for small sites can generally be provided with a small number of techniques, so it was decided to develop a simple practice standard to provide water quality control as part of the baseline. A Baseline designed for 24-hour volumes could be impacted in shorter high-intensity rainfall event (e.g. 5 minute peaks). R: The source control has adequate storage volume to hold onto the high intensity but low volume of rainfall. Once the short rain burst is over, that volume of water can be infiltrated over time. Page 6

9 b. Runoff Rate Control R: Participants suggested considering the appropriate volumetric capture needed to protect stream health. While percentages and values were discussed, rate control was not. Further comments on rate control are welcomed. There has to be a rate. If a lot captures 25mm of runoff per day, what will we do with it? R: The 25mm/day can be infiltrated, reused for non-potable uses, or slowly released at base flow rates. KWL looked at using retention tanks as an option to meet the baseline by storing and releasing water at base flow rates, which mimicked the rate at which infiltrated water would have entered streams through the ground. All of those approaches provide rate control for the volume of water captured. KWL felt the Baseline did not require another level of rate control (e.g. for larger rainfall events such as 2-year or 5-year return period), other than what was provided by the source controls as a by-product. Will the baseline result in single lot residential developments not requiring a geotechnical investigation? R: KWL does not recommend that the Baseline require geotechnical or hydrogeological investigations as the default. We want to keep this as simple as we can for a majority of the lots. There will be instances where geotechnical investigations are needed (e.g. steep slope areas, areas above seepage locations, near tops of ravines, etc.) and it will be up to the property owner and the municipality to flag that on an individual site basis. The appropriate source control should be selected based on the results of any geotechnical or hydrogeological investigation. There are a number of scenarios that could be considered. Flow rate control into the municipal storm system should be discussed at some level, and referenced in the document. This will avoid municipalities asking for runoff rate control to be included later in the process. R: Many municipal bylaws already have flow rate control criteria defined. Typical criteria include: a) detain 5-year post-development peak flow to pre-development, b) detain 2-year post-development peak flow to 50% of the 2-year peak flow, c) detain the 10- year event to not cause downstream impacts, etc. The Baseline does not invalidate the municipal flow rate control criteria, and it does not require additional or differing flow rate control. However implementation the baseline does provide discharge rate control for the volume of water that is captured, either by infiltration of the water or by slow release. There is no rate control criterion that has been included in the baseline as a design target. Page 7

10 It should indicate where the baseline is applicable and where it is not. This could be added to the BMP toolbox. If this is not applicable to specific types of land (i.e. lowland areas), pipe systems, or otherwise, it should be indicated in the document. R: The application of the baseline criteria was developed as part of the BMP applicability and selection process for this project and so does not really appear in the report selection under discussion today. Additional description of the criteria application to the hydrologic zones could be added to the report. c. Waterway Protection In New Westminster, creeks have been covered. Water goes into the Fraser River. Is the intent that this baseline will be the new norm? Is this aimed towards areas where runoff ends up in creeks? ISMPs for different areas may have different guidelines. R: The intent is that the baseline level could be applied everywhere. Within the homebuilding community of the GVS&DD, there are many different requirements that apply to single-family development sites. Most of the redevelopment of single-family development sites is being done by small operations that may work in different watersheds and/or municipalities. The Baseline is a mechanism to ensure minimal stormwater management requirements are implemented for individual lot development and re-development. The baseline itself does not change based on the receiving water. However, each municipality will have the flexibility to define areas that drain to the Fraser River or the Ocean and have the option to apply only water quality requirements, if they choose. How would the Baseline apply to jurisdictions whose storm sewers exit into the Fraser River or ocean? R: KWL did not have sufficient information during the initial steps of the study to delineate which areas are piped directly into large water bodies and which flow through steep creeks. Municipalities have discretion in how they define different areas within their jurisdictions. If water drains directly into the Fraser River or into the ocean, water quality is the important driver for source controls, not volume reduction or rate control, and the municipality should be able to define whether the full baseline applies for those areas or just the water quality practice standard. Also, additional peak flow attenuation criteria can be required by the municipality to address pipe capacity issues, so the municipality may have capture for flow control requirements greater than those of the baseline whether or not the discharge goes to a large body of water. Page 8

11 d. Water Quality The presentation referenced runoff from impervious surfaces. Is a roof considered as part of the maximum allowable impervious surface? R: The total impervious surface is inclusive of the roof. Would the Baseline apply in a watershed that is only 25% impervious (i.e. the watershed already meets the 75% volumetric reduction target by limiting the amount of development to 25% total impervious surface)? R: The baseline deals with single lot development, not watersheds. In the 25% impervious watershed example, how is that imperviousness distributed? There will likely be lots that are 0% impervious and other that are >25% impervious. We do not want to adversely impact sub-watershed or tributary streams, therefore the criteria should apply to all lots within that watershed. R: Benefits of onsite source controls and a variety of techniques (i.e. rain gardens, etc.) were modelled for four different watersheds in Opportunities to phase in onsite source control were considered based on a 50-year average timeframe for a property to redevelop. What happened to hydrology over time and through the attrition of redevelopment was studied, which suggested a decrease in peak runoff rates in some cases to predevelopment levels. There was a significant benefit to watershed hydrology over a long period of time by implementing onsite source controls on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, the team considered the 1999 flood in White Rock. Metro Vancouver modelled what the response to the storm would have been if White Rock had an onsite stormwater management system, and determined that the storm would not have created the flows that caused the flooding. That led SILG to consider further development of the Water Balance Model and introducing an on-site baseline. The focus of this current project is to confirm a minimal acceptable standard. R: When KWL considered specific best management practices to be used in developing design standards, they looked at how they would be applied across the hydrologic zones. At that point (for lowland areas specifically) infiltration is not practical. However consideration of water quality is appropriate. Feedback on what should be included related to water quality would be helpful. The Baseline is open to other options to define water quality and runoff peak flow criteria. The Baseline should reflect that water quality is equally as important as quantity. R: Although the Baseline was initially focussed on volumetric capture, it will reflect the two aspects (hydrologic and water quality controls). Page 9

12 Water quality helps address pollution. A focus on Water quality may be preferable stormwater management. R: The earlier discussion emphasized that water quality should be included in the Baseline. The inclusion of water quality as a measurement comes from the need to protect habitat, which is linked to hydrology management. The baseline will be updated to include water quality and clarify how it is addressed in the baseline. R: The SILG members talked about the importance of water quality, but did not discuss the merits of practice-based versus performance-based standards. e. Practice-Based vs. Performance-Based Standards Volumetric capture can be a by-product of water quality standards. R: With regards to water quality standards, the report proposed a practice-based standard instead of a performance-based standard as this would have added complexity. The water quality design event could be the 6-month 24-hour storm. R: This is the standard used in Washington state and is used in BC as well, but single lot residential development is generally exempt. The proposed Baseline sets a practices standard which should, in general, achieve the water quality goals of designing for treatment of the 6-month, 24-hour storm but without requiring that a design be created to meet that target for single lot development cases. Is runoff from a residential driveway considered under current stormwater standards? R: Stormwater standards generally focus on road runoff. Passing water through a sump system is different from sending it to vegetation. Although the municipality would not want to lose vegetative areas, a sump system may provide sufficient benefits. R: It is preferable to direct driveway runoff to a vegetative area, if possible. There may also be unique instances, where this cannot be achieved. The Baseline could specify drain to vegetation, wherever possible. The sump should be the absolute minimum requirement for water quality. Page 10

13 When reviewing plans at the municipal level, it is important to check their approach and indicate (where feasible) which BMP to work towards. Practice-based standards can be site specific. Approach and feasibility of BMPs is indicated at the time of plan review. R: Municipalities may review their drawings differently. It is important to note that this is proposed as a minimum baseline to go into municipal bylaws. The ISMP criteria from municipalities could be more robust or could speak to issues in terms of selection or priority. Municipalities may want a higher performance level which could be dealt with in bylaws and discussed later in terms of implementation. R: Participants comments on prioritizing a practice-base standard have been helpful. f. Applicability of the Baseline on other Development Types Comments were welcomed on whether the Baseline is focussed on the right development types. During a prior discussion, it was suggested that information be provided on other types of land uses that could be included in the Baseline. When is a building too big? What can the municipality expect beyond a duplex or a triplex? Does single family lot building size matter? R: It would be up to municipalities to fine-tune which zoning categories the Baseline would apply to. It could apply when zoning indicates the building is not just duplex or single family. If municipalities have multi-family included in their ISMP, they should consider the Baseline and its applicability. What is the disadvantage of applying this to all lots as a baseline minimum? R: We would like to see higher standards for non-single family residential land uses; subdivision development, and comprehensive development are areas where it is easier to implement stormwater management. With larger redevelopment areas, this Baseline would not be the appropriate default level. R Unless further comments to the contrary are brought forward, the group will move forward with the development type presented in the proposed Baseline. Page 11

14 g. Hydrologic Zone Categories Soil was considered when the hydrologic zones were defined. The zones were used to determine how to size and apply the BMPs. It would be up to the municipality to specify where stormwater drains to the ocean or steep stream, and this would dictate which Baseline elements (VR, WQ, peak flow attenuation) apply. Lowlands were included as a blanket category to which only certain BMPs could be applied. Infiltration BMPs may not work in lowland areas. The zones proposed could benefit from further refinement based on local data from municipalities. R: Municipalities are able to do their own mapping and make decisions on whether or how to define the areas further. There could be greater variation to account for, on a local basis. There are different standards for different levels of rainfall and soils. The standards developed are simple. The purpose of this discussion is not the accuracy of the mapping but of the zone categorization. In the event there are discrepancies on zone determination, how will the final decision be made? R: Some broad assumptions have been made regarding soils. Geotechnical assessment of soils is not needed to determine which category the property is in. Infiltration rates for the poor soils areas used in the sizing calculations were 1 mm/hr with the poor soils areas defined as any soils with infiltration rates <10 mm/hr and therefore the sizing is conservative. Some developers may argue that their soil conditions are too poor for stormwater management if we do not pre-define some categories. The municipality will determine which hydrologic zone applies where within their municipal boundaries if the municipality includes multiple hydrologic zones. Municipal decision flexibility should be highlighted in the report. What is the link between the Baseline and BC s Waterbucket and Water Balance Model? R: The Water Balance Model (which began at SILG) could produce results that exceeded the baseline standards for implementation proposed by this project. The model may however be more in-depth than what most homeowners would want to work with. R: The intent was that there would be a minimum standard, and that municipalities would address their unique needs through the ISMP process. This baseline was intended to be simple. The Water Balance Model was geared towards hydrology experts, and is unlikely to meet the needs and objectives of the average homebuilder. Page 12

15 h. Implementation and Enforcement How does the Baseline apply to a property with a perimeter drainage pump? Does the standard differ for a property with or without a basement? R: The design assumed the size of the drains and that there was a basement. The infiltrating source controls should be located below the perimeter drain elevation ideally. If a hydro geologist determines that infiltration would adversely impact the perimeter drain, there are non-infiltrating source controls that can be used.. Some properties pump perimeter drainage 24 hours a day, which can contravene local bylaws. R: If this pump is pumping around the clock currently, putting more water into the ground could actually reduce the load on the pump or would at least not adversely impact the existing situation. A home at the base of a hill with multiple homes above could be heavily impacted by increased groundwater. R: It is important to note that we are not trying to infiltrate more than what would in natural conditions. In severe instances, the municipality needs to be able to dictate that certain lots should not use infiltrating source controls, but that doesn t mean that the uphill lot does nothing for stormwater management. Studies have expressed concerns about water flowing underground versus via a creek. Pumping does not filter for water quality. R: It is important to distinguish between water detention and retention. For example, a cistern could slowly release collected water at base flow rates to mimic groundwater flow, or the water in the cistern could be reused. Detention facilities would be required to tame a 10-year event down to a pre-development 10-year event. These would have a larger outlet than the base flow release facilities because the base flow release is much smaller than the 10-year pre-development event flow. R: If you infiltrate in some more permeable areas, there may be impacts. In some areas infiltration practices may not be used. The Baseline standard can be achieved through non-infiltrating source controls, such as a retention tank. R: Water flow will vary by event. In most instances, excess water will need to be piped away into the storm sewer system during larger rainfall events. The cost of engineering may be a strong argument in some cities. R: A workshop with municipalities to discuss implementation issues and ideas will be scheduled once the Baseline criteria have been determined. Page 13

16 R: The next workshop can discuss municipalities unique barriers and challenges related to the Baseline. It is important to determine first what the Baseline is managing as a minimum. The Baseline needs to consider what is best for beaches, fishes, lakes, ponds and rivers. Parameters such as water runoff used as irrigation should be acknowledged as implementation methods. R: Yes, harvesting and reuse of water is a way to meet the capture target. What is the process for finalizing the Baseline? R: Past discussions about volumes captured, were considered. The water quality perspective will be applied more across the board than volumetric capture. Metro Vancouver wants to make sure there is comfort with the Baseline approach they have proposed, before the group moves forward with more workshops on the implementation of the baseline criteria. i. Other topics Reference to a minimum code or baseline is preferable to C- level. R: What is being proposed is a bottom line municipalities can aim higher. It is hoped that ISMPs and sensitive water courses would have higher standards. R: KWL will replace references to the C- level, which was meant as an internal naming convention to emphasize the relative level of this standard, with minimum baseline in any public document report. Q/C Does adding a layer of topsoil achieve an A+ level? R: Not necessarily - if there is no impervious runoff draining to the topsoil then it does not provide even the C- level. The entire lot has to be looked at as a whole to see how much capture/treatment is achieved. Would a minimal rainwater capture level be defined as an A+ level? R: No, this is about a minimum region-wide baseline level. Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMPs) may define watershed needs which may be greater and may be considered local specifications. Page 14

17 The report document needs more information than it currently has. It is incomplete. It needs to set out where each Baseline element is applicable. What elements should be excluded for lowlands area and for watersheds piped to large water bodies? R: KWL will revise the report. A better explanation on how the Baseline criteria apply to each receiving water type will be provided. There will be robustness in how the Baseline can be incorporated into municipal bylaws, including requiring more than the minimum Baseline requirements. The current report is an informational report on the project to develop the baseline. There will likely be future efforts that develop public documents regarding the implementation of the baseline and that do not need to have the background on the development of the criteria and hydrologic zones. 4. Workshop Recap and Next Steps Mr. Tynan thanked attendees for their participation and outlined next steps in the process. He welcomed further feedback prior to August 11, 2014 and confirmed that a summary of the points heard at the workshop would be shared with participants later in the summer. Mr. Tynan asked whether participants would like a follow-up meeting in advance of Workshop No. 2. Participants expressed a preference for an in-person meeting to be held on the same date as either the next SILG meeting or the next REAC Liquid Waste Subcommittee meeting. A Working Group of SILG members had been tasked with providing ongoing comments on the baseline. Mr. Tynan welcomed participants to contact him, if they were interested in joining the Working Group. The Workshop concluded at 3:40 p.m. Page 15

18 Appendix C Technical Workshop Attendees Municipal Representatives: Andy Bell, City of Richmond Sein Chan, City of Coquitlam Katalin Dobrescu, City of New Westminster David Hislop, City of Surrey Patrick Johnstone, City of Richmond Andy Kwan, District of West Vancouver John Lee, Corporation of Delta Andrew Ling, City of Vancouver David Matsubara, City of North Vancouver Angela Mawdsley, District of North Vancouver Simone Rousseau, City of Vancouver Mark Schwark, City of Vancouver Suman Shergill, City of Richmond Ron Weismiller, City of Burnaby Also Present: Nicholas Danford, Context Research Alison Everly, Metro Vancouver Erin Embley, Metro Vancouver Robert Hicks, Metro Vancouver Laurel Morgan, KWL Consulting Engineers Krista Payette, BC Ministry of Environment Sean Tynan, Metro Vancouver David Zabil, KWL Consulting Engineers Carrie Peacock, Recording Secretary, Raincoast Ventures Ltd. APPENDIX 1 to the held July 30, 2014 in Burnaby, BC Page 16