Photo: Gagandeep Ghuman
By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: March 8, 2014
Garibaldi at Squamish proponents have asked for a one-year extension for the environmental assessment process.
The Environment Assessment Office (EAO) had earlier set a deadline for June 2014 for the proponents to provide supplemental information to EAO on a range of issues.
[manual_related_posts]
GAS proponents want that deadline to be extended to June 2015. They have given two reasons for this demand for extension.
In a letter he wrote to EAO on March 3, David Negrin, the company CEO, wrote that more time is required because of:
- Questions related to groundwater withdrawal effects require that Paradise Valley Well monitoring be continued to a later point.
- Continued concerns about adverse effects to public use of Cat Lake and Brohm Lake recreation area suggest GAS re-evaluate areas in the master plan.
“Professional advice tells us this change in scope will require more preparation and assessment time for these two issues,” Negrin wrote.
Chris Hamilton, a project director with EAO, said no decision has been made on the request.
“Ministers are currently considering this request,” Hamilton said.
Garibaldi at Squamish is a proposed all-season resort on the slopes of Brohm Ridge, approx 15 kilometres from Squamish.
Over the proposed fifteen-year development, as many as22,846 bed units are planned.
In April 2010, the District of Squamish asked the province to not give an environmental assessment certificate to GAS, citing issues with water extraction.
The EAO didn’t accept the advice, but asked GAS to provide supplemental information on water, hydrology, fish, vegetation and wildlife.
GAS proponents are also excluding one-third of land, about 4,000 acres, from its master plan.
The 4,000 acres of land being taken out of the master plan is close to Highway 99, surrounding Cat Lake and Brohm Lake.
“We’ll still have that land below, but we are not planning to build down there,” said GAS president, Wolfgang Richter.
The addition of the 4,000 acres at the bottom created a ‘lot of havoc’ about the project’s real intentions, he said.
“It just ended up being a red herring, which distracted everyone from what our real intention were,” he said.
Richter said the focus of GAS is on bed units, not acreage.
“The emphasis wasn’t down below, and it just distracted everybody,” he said.
The area now being excluded was added to the proposal ten years ago, a decision that led to a lawsuit from the Squamish Nation.
Richter called that inclusion a ‘mistake’.
Keeping the 4,000 acres at the bottom part undeveloped also ensures no one else tries to develop it down the line, Richter added.
“The turn off from the highway is still critical, but it’s also helpful to know it won’t be someone else’s subject site,” he said.
Save Brohm Ridge, a group that opposes GAS, says the development will create urban sprawl, increase landslide and hazard potential, endanger wildlife habitat and increase landslide and flood hazard potential.
Meanwhile, Chris Hamilton from EAO office said they haven’t heard from GAS on any changes to its master plan.
Dave says
Why not ten years?
Murray Sovereign says
So, they no longer want to use the land around Cat and Brohm Lakes, but they still want to own the land around Cat and Brohm Lakes? That smells a little. Once it’s in private hands, how long would it be before they start exercising their property rights, putting up fences and “no trespassing” signs? If you have no use for the land, then leave it with the Crown. I don’t see why we should be giving up public land just so private interests can sit on it.
Jaspera says
What, again! This project smells, and has smelled from day one! It’s time our illustrious leaders put it out with the garbage and leave this area intact. for the public. Why are our public officials so intent on giving away or siphoning off our public lands?
Donna says
why do we contiue to waste time and money on this the Squamish Nation when I was on ten or more years we were not in supoort we have so much green land wasted there will not be any left for the wild life or trees gods sake leve it alone ………..
pierre says
Hey lets just continually change up the proposal, keep the EAO gates open, wear the public out, confuse everyone, we’ll get it eventually … This project is absurd, just kill it once and for all!
Lawrence says
And now it comes down to an issue of trust – and perhaps listening to the seemingly very clear voice of the majority of interested Squamish residents. 10 years ago the GAS decision-makers clearly WEREN’T listening – to the ultimate detriment of the entire project. The Cat / Brohm Lake inclusion has been a major sticking point for many. As will be the issue of “trust us, we really don’t plan to develop this (although we’re absolutely keeping it, thank you very much)”. What surety is offered that there won’t be a change of mind / heart by future GAS management? GAS reassures us that any future plans regarding development on the highway would still be subject to the approval of future (as-yet unelected) Squamish Council – which sadly seems not so much protection at all! Given the winds of change, a sufficiently pro-development Council may doubtless be elected at some time to approve on-highway development of the area – and should that be done it could never be undone (it’s really hard to break legally binding contracts to bulldoze fast-food outlets and replant trees in their parking lots). So – what surety exists? Could that land be ceded from the project and deeded as Park Land? Could a huge security bond (several hundred million dollars I would propose – if not more?) be placed as a surety against future development? Is there any precedent or legal means to do something to create trust in Squamish that there will be NO eventual development of this area? Ever??? GAS needs to win this trust – or the “mistake and havoc” created by their lack of respectful consultation 10 years ago will never be undone, and the opposition to at least this aspect of the proposal will almost certainly continue undiminished…
Jeff Van Norman says
So, let me get this straight, GAS tells public they “are not planning to build down there”, yet the EAO office has not heard from GAS on any changes.
Of course we all know that this statement in no way prevents them from developing it TOMORROW. It might however, sweep the issue under the mat for NOW.
Question is, if they get the go ahead on the entire project, is there a way to prevent development of this area in the future? Would a binding contract be smart to have? Or would they like to donate the land as a park?
A real guarantee might be a good thing to have.
Murray Sovereign says
Better than a guarantee would be this: “If you want the land included in your application for title, then show us your plans for using the land. If you have no plans for using the land, then remove it from your application. If you come up with a use for the land at a later date, you can apply for it and show us your plan at that time. But you can’t have the land now just to sit on it indefinitely. In short – no plan: no land.”
It’s public land, and should remain so until someone comes up with a good reason for us to surrender title. Under no circumstances should we be handing over public land to someone just on the off chance that they might come up with a good use for it some time in the future, maybe, we’ll see… And saying “we don’t want to use it right now, but we don’t want anyone else to use it either” also isn’t good enough.
Sarah Murphy says
PLEASE edit before posting or printing! Title reads “assesement”.