Editor:
Re: “Gibsons council puts developer first” by William Baker, Letters, June 29.
Mr. Baker, your expression of the June 19 Eagleview Heights bylaw amendment was as accurate as it was eloquent. One addition I would make is, given the physical characteristics of the 464 Eaglecrest site, the only way to fit 87 units onto this site is if the units were exceptionally small, or Town and council ignore public safety and authorizes an extensive excavation of the aquitard.
From what I have researched on the status of this coveted natural asset, clearcutting the old-growth forest and decimating some spotted owl habitat would be more acceptable than an assault on the aquitard. The aquitard is one metre to two metres below the surface where it would require approximately 10 metres of excavation into and possibly through the aquitard to accommodate the proposed underground parking. It may also restrict the terracing required to accommodate three-storey buildings.
This doesn’t come as any great surprise. The nearby residents who constructed their homes were confronted with this problem and had to change their foundation plans.
Include stormwater risk management, emergency vehicle access and egress, British Columbia FireSmart standards, steep-slope soil stability risk assessments by appropriate and competent professionals, and around 40 total units is more the reality. This is still within the range of the OCP for increased unit density.
My four decades in fire and emergency risk management have imprinted on me to never, never, ever trivialize or compromise safety. It is the accumulation of small compromises over time that culminates in disasters. I have experienced and researched too many disasters that could have and should have been proactively mitigated at the design phase. Some forethought and due diligence goes a long way.
Al Beaver, Gibsons
