Director of Engineering Dave Newman: Comparison with breach of aquifer in Vancouver is misleading. “There is no project without risk.”
With an audience of about 30 George supporters and as many opponents, council approved the George Hotel environmental development permit at a special council meeting on July 31. The supporters gave several long rounds of applause.
Mayor Rowe, and councillors Jenermy Valeriote and Charlene SanJenko attended the meeting. Mayor Rowe read a statement on behalf of Councillor Stafford Lumley to explain his absence: “As you are aware, some members of the community filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s office suggesting that I might be in a conflict of interest in view of the fact that I own a business in Lower Gibsons and advocated for economic opportunities such as the George Hotel before being elected to council. I don’t believe I have a conflict of interest in this matter, and I continue to believe that. However, to preserve the integrity of the application review process, I will not be participating in discussions on this matter until I seek legal opinion.”
Councillor White has recused himself from the decision-making process for the George Hotel and Residences over a potential conflict of interest as well. He would lose view from his house due to the project.
Director of Planning Andre Boel told council that staff is satisfied the developer has met all the guidelines. Councillor Valeriote had confidence in the thoroughness of the approval process. “It’s about protection of the aquifer, we all know what is at stake,” he said.
The next item on the agenda was a staff report regarding the geotechnical an aquifer review results for the George Hotel. Boel outlined a number of peer reviews and investigations of the site done by the town and the applicant. An important point was the construction of the foundation in a way that would protect the aquifer which supplies 3,000 residents of Gibsons with drinking water.. The foundation will be very shallow, perched on the layers which protect the aquifer. The foundation will be constructed by “deep mixing” soil materials with grout.
Because this technique is not widely used, the process will move in small increments, starting with a closely monitored field trial, and there is a robust contigency plan in place, Boel assured council. Staff insisted on it, he said, because “even though the geotechnical engineer is confident this can be done, there is always the chance of ‘what if.’”
The contingency plan requires constant monitoring of the process. Equipment for intervention must be available on the site in case problems occur.
The reports are being finalized and staff is looking at issuing development permits for geotechnical hazards and aquifer protection. Council does not need to approve them.
The Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community Society and Marcia Timbres have filed an appeal with the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) in Victoria. They charge that Vincent Hanemayer, senior contaminated sites officer with the Ministry of the Environment, has approved a remediation plan for the site that does not adequately protect the environment and public health, including the Gibsons aquifer.
GABC has requested the EAB reverse Hanemayer’s decision and suspend any permit for the site until Hanemayer has received new instructions.
During the Inquiries period at the meeting, Suzanne Senger of GABC asked mayor Rowe if the town approved the environmental permit only because the Ministry had approved it. Mayor Rowe answered that he would not comment because of the appeal proceedings.
Senger replied that the town was not a party in the appeal, and asked him to answer. When mayor Rowe said he had already answered her, the George supporters drowned further inquiries from Senger in loud and long applause.
Among shouts from opponents to answer the question, chief administrative officer Emanuel Machado addressed the public. “I think it would be very odd if the staff of a small town would say that the experts of the Ministry of the environment were incorrect. We are not trained in this, that’s why we rely on a senior level of government.” A minute-long applause and cheerful shouts followed.
When Senger attempted to speak again, the mayor told her he’d had enough. “You don’t pay taxes here,” he said.
Gibsons resident Roger Swickis inquired about the public consultation process for the George project. The mayor keeps saying the public has had ample opportunity to ask questions of council but could the mayor please mention these opportunities, he said.
Corporate officer Selina Williams had earlier given him two dates: September 24 and October 1, 2015. However, at the September 24 presentation by the developer at Elphinstone High School, mayor and council were not present, and during the public hearing on October 1, no questions were answered. Mayor and council did not speak.
Mayor Rowe told Swickis that members of the public have the right to ask questions during the inquiry period at every council meeting.
The questions and answers are not recorded in the minutes. A recording can be obtained from staff for $10.
Environmental consultant Dr. Andre Sobolewski asked if the town would consider asking the developer to post a bond in case something would happen to the aquifer. Mayor Rowe referred the question to Andre Boel, who asked Director of engineering Dave Newman to answer.
Newman said that the consultants and the contractor will monitor and further investigate different depths for excavation. It may be necessary to excavate to a depth of 2 metres to control the contaminants, or they may be left in place and be isolated and contained during the deep mixing process. According to Newman, the contaminants could also be removed without actually digging a hole.
Newman also referred to the breach of an aquifer in Vancouver. It would be “misleading” to suggest this could happen in Gibsons, he said, because the circumstances were quite different. In Vancouver, no studies or risk assessment had been done, there was no monitoring and no contingency plan. The response was “panicky.”
Judy Bonkoff and Barry Haines asked if the town had proper insurance in case of a breach of the aquifer. Newman called the risk minimal. “There is no project without risk. Just getting up every morning we expose ourselves to risk.”
Machado said that development permits require liability insurance for the developer. The consultants have insurance as well.
Diana Robertson asked if anybody was on the hook for the $80,000 the town says it spent to counter Dr. Dorothy Riddle’s claim to the Human Rights Tribunal over the closure of Winn Road for the George. Robertson estimated the town may have spent $200,000 answering queries, appeals and administrative challenges from the public in relation to the George project.
Mayor Rowe answered that staff is preparing a report about the expenses the town has incurred responding to applications which opponents of the project have made to a number of provincial bodies. “We’ll make it clear what the cost has been to the town,” he said.
The “applause” mentioned in the article was generated by the George supporters and was not so much to show support for the comments by staff and council. It was clearly being used to drown out the voice of Ms. Senger as it continued long after an “applause” would normally last. This din was prolonged even when members of the audience tried to stop the rudeness from continuing by forcefully asking the ignorant members of the audience to let us at the back hear the discourse.
The mayor, sensing support for his position cut off Ms. Senger by the dismissive, “You don’t pay taxes here”, as if that somehow was an excuse for cutting off her right to free speech and the rude behaviour of his toadies in the audience.
Dave Newman says “There is no project without risk” and points out that we take a risk every time we get up in the morning. Comparing the risk of contaminating the drinking water for the whole town with the risks we, as individuals, take when we get up in the morning is a spurious comparison. There may be no project without risk, but the risk of breaching the aquifer carries abnormally serious consequences for everyone in the town.
Interesting that the developer and the engineers are protected by insurance should the aquifer be breached but not the Town nor its residents. We will potentially be stuck paying the costs to repair and then trying to recover from the insurers of the responsible parties. Mr. Newman seems to have failed to answer the question regarding protections in place for the Town. Sorry Dave, but I do not “get up every morning and expose my water supply, and that of around another 2,999 people, to risk”! I expect the Town to protect our water supply, not expose it to risk!
Not surprising to see that Wayne Rowe persists relentlessly, ruthlessly, and wrong-headedly in furthering his friend’s project, despite all the evidence adduced showing that the project is unsuitable and dangerous.
As for Rowe’s self-serving assertion that “the public have the right to ask questions during the inquiry period at every council meeting,” he knows perfectly well that he virtually NEVER answers questions. Because of his aversion to Inquiries and answering questions, he has formally changed council’s procedures from 3 Inquiry sessions per council meeting to one, at the end of the meeting after decisions have been made, and in addition limited inquiries to matters related to items on the agenda only instead of the former possibility of asking council questions on any matter under their jurisdiction. However, since he virtually NEVER answers inquiries anyway, the number of opportunities is moot.
I am surprised though that S.Lumley has not yet received a legal opinion about his blatant conflict of interest. A couple of months after his presentation to council, complete with documents with (mythical) figures showing how much more money his business would make if the George were in place, he ran for council and started voting unfailingly in favour of the George. The complainants to the Ombudsperson received a letter as far back as May 25 explaining the action they had taken with respect to Lumley:
“As the Town did not direct Councillor Lumley to seek a legal opinion when the concern was raised about potential conflict of interest,” wrote the investigator, “ we consulted with staff and suggested that he consider recusing himself from further discussions on matters in respect of the George Hotel application until he receives legal advice to the effect that he does not in fact have a conflict.”
How long does it take to get a legal opinion? What does it take for anyone with a brain to see s/he is in a conflict of interest?
Was the story S.Lumley gave to explain his absence at the last meeting with the George on the agenda–“family matters to attend to”–only part of the truth?
I cannot believe that the town would risk our water supply without taking every step possible to cover any possibility. When I asked the question about insurance Manny could have answered that they were looking into it but no, just Dave Newman spoke on acceptable risk.
This is just plain stupid with a lot of very stupid supporters not even questioning this possible reality. This is so sad.
The real question is WHY would the Mayor and his staff (admittedly) risk the aquifer? George supporters are quick to say the last election was fought on the issue of the George… and the George won. But the fact is, the Rowe slate won the last election by promising to negotiate the scale of the project (which they never did) and by saying they would NOT risk Gibsons Aquifer. Valeriote is a bloody geotechnical engineer and he ran on the platform that he would ensure due diligence is done to protect the aquifer yet now he’s singing off on this as an elected person. No-one in Gibsons voted to put our drinking water aquifer at risk. The notion that Rowe and his minions have a mandate to do this based on a platform of lies is not only BS, it’s morally bankrupt. Who’s going to run for Gibsons council in 2018?
Furthermore, how can they say the last election was fought on the George Hotel issue when questions and comments about the George were not allowed at the all-candidates meeting held before the election? If The George was the defining issue why wasn’t anyone allowed to mention it?