Chief administrative officer Emanuel Machado says peer reviews of the George design exist, although they have not been made public
(By News Desk)
The Town of Gibsons will not require a bond from Klaus Fuerniss, the developer of The George, to cover possible risks to the aquifer. However, the town will require insurance from those involved with the work, chief administrative officer Emanuel Machado has told The Coast Clarion.
The amount of insurance is not yet known, but it could be “$3 million or $5 million, or more,” Machado said. “Insurance coverage naming the town as additionally insured is a standard town requirement.”
Thirty-six residents had asked the town in March to require a $20-million bond.
Machado said a number of peer reviews of the engineering plans for construction of The George on top of the aquifer have been conducted since 2015: “The town maintains the peer review services of Dr. Donald Bruce, who has been advising the town since early 2015, and that will continue as necessary.”
However, Bruce, from Geosystems L.P., is a civil and geotechnical engineer specialized in deep-soil mixing — the process used to prepare the soil on top of the aquifer for construction — and not a hydro geologist. Waterline Resources, the consulting firm which conducted the mapping of Gibsons aquifer, and WSP (formerly Levelton Consultants Ltd.) have also been involved during the process, Machado said.
“We have retained Dr. Bruce to make sure that all aspects of the reviews were done properly, it’s quite a complicated process, with lots of different expertise. He has been overseeing the reporting for us.”
Before 2015, the town retained Waterline Resources to peer review the hydrogeological aspects of the design while Levelton Consultants Ltd. (now WSP) was asked to examine the geotechnical aspects.
Both firms said the design was not without risks, with Waterline mentioning the possibility of an “uncontrollable breach of the aquitard” and Levelton “an uncontrolled sinkhole, aquifer depressurization”. . . “which could be catastrophic”.
The developer subsequently changed the design to make sure the underside of the buildings would stay clear of the aquifer and the layers above it through a process of deep-soil mixing.
In a special council meeting July 31, 2017, then-director of planning Andre Boel told council that Waterline Resources and Levelton had peer-reviewed the new design, which “resulted in a lot of issues being addressed,” although no details were provided.
Waterline and Levelton recommended the town hire a peer reviewer for the deep-soil mixing process, which resulted in the town retaining Bruce. Also, the developer was required to add additional expertise for the deep-soil mixing process and hired Isherwood Geostructural Engineers of Vancouver.
The Gibsons Alliance for Business and Community made a freedom of information (FOI) request for peer reviews of the new design, which was denied by the former council. An appeal to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission failed as well.
The Coast Clarion has been contacted by a number of residents concerned about a lack of openness about the peer reviews and the aquifer.
While the developer has submitted a contingency plan to the town in case something goes wrong, there has been no mention of a peer review of that plan.
The developer has asked the Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations for permission to take over the municipal water-lot lease in front of Winegarden Park — an area at present available to the public. The development agreement for The George project states that the developer is not entitled to a building permit until the water lease is in place.
The ministry recently decided to postpone its decision on the water lease until after the Environmental Appeal Board hearing about The George scheduled for the end of October.
However, this does not mean building permits cannot be issued before the end of the year, Machado told The Coast Clarion: “It’s when the developer needs them; it could be August, it could be later.”
While Machado says the water-lot lease issue does not affect the issuance of building permits, the land-exchange agreement for Winn Road does. Lawyers for the town and the developer are still working on that and the process is nearing completion, Machado said this week. In February, he had expected the agreement would be concluded “in a few weeks”.
In the application for the water-lot lease, the developer wrote: “The Town of Gibsons has surrendered in writing its leasehold interest of water-lot lease 237789 to Klaus Fuerniss Enterprises Inc. for the proposed expanded marina. Please see letter from the Town of Gibsons regarding surrender of lease tenure attached.”
When The Coast Clarion inquired about the letter and the terms of surrender, Machado replied that the former council “considered the matter at an in-camera meeting and staff is not at liberty to discuss the terms of the surrender unless authorized by council.”
Asked whether there is a requirement that the developer build the hotel portion of the project first, Machado referred The Coast Clarion to Section 4 (j) in the development agreement, but this section specifies that the hotel portion can only be used as a hotel, and says nothing about it being built first.
In his application for the water-lot lease, the developer said he intends to build the condos first.
Gibsons Mayor Bill Beamish is responding to emails from citizens and obviously wants staff to answer questions, but it took four requests and a month of waiting before Machado supplied incomplete answers, and another conversation with the CAO to get more information.
As a resident of Gibsons, it is troubling to see the constant assumption, that ‘nothing can go wrong, nothing will go wrong and anyways we citizens are not smart enough to understand the complicated expert knowledge of these reports’ …
It is a patronising attitude, which time and again proves to be costly when things do go wrong and something gets irreparably altered or destroyed.
We can only hope that we will not have to experience the ….” I told you so ” moment and have our aquifer breached and us taxpayers needing to fork out the $
to try to fix an unfixable mess.
our great acquirer
This is our drinking water for 7000 people every day, how is it one individual can negate the responsibilities of any other individual making holes in our drinking water supply bowl. (aquifer) No one on this site can answer a simple question, “ why are you drilling in an aquifer?”
As another point of interest, in a liquified foundation base, how is this stable in an earthquake, will the support structure be on say…elastic bands? earthquakes hit like a big wave of water, in ripples.
I don’t think five million will go far if the aquifer is breached. I’m wondering if even twenty million would be enough. If the Town really wants to reassure the public why can’t they ask for at least the bond for twenty million?
Well the condos are to be built first. Wouldn’t you have guessed that? My prediction is that this site will only see the construction of condos. The hotel is such an iffy business venture that I suspect that no one will risk their money investing in it.
As far as the current work on the site is concerned, I stopped and talked to the crew that was there doing the work we see of late. I asked what they were up to and was told that they were investigating the subsurface conditions by using probes that involved no drilling. The drilling is scheduled to happen next and will happen in the near future. I asked if there was any danger of them perforating the aquitard and the response was that they hoped not to do that. I assured them that I hoped that as well and added that I depend on the water.
Our town ‘s CAO and staff along with our politicians are risking our drinking water. Plain and simple! These officials are only human and not infallible, so why are we ok with the possibility of a breach or spreading toxins. There is a lack of transparency as well as a refusal to get adequate bonds posted by the developer. This is insane! We should all be demanding accountability from our officials instead of sitting back and believing all will be ok.
What insurance company would insure this highly risky project?
I am shocked at the lack of transparency of the new regime at Town Hall, although I suppose remnants of the former one are still in place and invested in decisions they colluded with. So many things they are stonewalling us citizens on:
How much insurance does this project have? Vancouver has spent two years and $10.5 million on the Capilano Aquifer breach — and although it was finally capped, it is still not deemed safe to build on.
Why are we townspeople not allowed to see the 2017 peer reviews? The former corporate officer implied we were too stupid to understand the technicalities. Really? Such condescension in a community of amazingly gifted citizens is unacceptable.
Can we see the contingency plan that developer Fuerniss has submitted?
When did developer Fuerniss change the plan from building the hotel first to building the condos first? Or was that always his plan despite what we were led to believe? The ladies in fur coats will be very disappointed if the promised hotel evaporates! (“Not enough money after all”?)
And when did the Town “surrender… in writing its leasehold interest of water-lot lease 237789 to Klaus Fuerniss Enterprises Inc. for the proposed expanded marina”? Why can’t we see the terms of the letter of surrender? Why did then-council hide what they were up to by “consider(ing) the matter at an in-camera meeting”? And why, since “staff is not at liberty to discuss the terms of the surrender unless authorized by council,” does not the present council simply authorize the requisite openness and transparency?
This project has never made sense no matter what contortions the developer and his minions go through.