An 'agonizing decision': Burnaby mayor shares thoughts on controversial green waste facility

Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley is standing firm that the construction of the controversial Green Recycling and Organics (GRO) facility proposed to be built on 21-acres of dedicated parkland at Fraser Foreshore Park is a key solution in Burnaby reaching its climate action targets.

In an interview with the Beacon, Hurley said that he understands why residents may be concerned about the proposed location of the facility, but in the long term, it will bring benefits.

“There’s always been a concern with council. This is a very, very, very difficult and agonizing decision. But you know, at the end of the day, when we look at our climate change challenges, this is something that I strongly believe—and council does too—that it’s the only answer to what we’re facing,” he said.

The facility would convert organic waste into soil that could be used by residents, community gardeners, and local farms, according to the city.

GRO also has the potential to generate renewable natural gas to heat 5,000 homes per year via a process that breaks down organic waste in an environment without oxygen and creates a biogas byproduct—usually methane—which is captured and can be used as a renewable substitute for fossil-based natural gas.

The facility would process up to 150,000 tonnes of organic waste from Burnaby and the Metro Vancouver region (30,000 tonnes would come from Burnaby and the remainder would be from surrounding communities).

The city aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, with a reduction target of 45% in 2030, and 75% in 2040, and Hurley stated that GRO would take “many diesel trucks off the road” because they would not be driving to other parts of the province to deliver waste anymore.

Currently, Burnaby’s green waste is processed at a private facility in Delta, and at another facility in Pemberton, said Hurley.

Hurley added that the facility’s ability to produce Burnaby’s own natural gas is “creating a circular economy that will then allow us to get away from our diesel vehicles and move into RNG [renewable natural gas] vehicles.”

Metro Vancouver municipalities are “very interested” in the project, he said, but the region’s mayors won't sit down and formally discuss any details “until we know the project is actually going to go ahead.”

Although Hurley and the city have been touting the benefits of GRO, the project’s proposed location has been heavily criticized by residents.

The facility’s proposed location would impact eight hectares of wetland habitat (4.4 hectares of swamp, 2.5 hectares of forest, and 1.1 hectares of marsh).

Many locals have expressed concerns regarding the environmental impacts of removing dedicated parkland and how it will affect its ecological habitats.

“Wetlands are an especially vital habitat type, not only for their inherent worth to native plants and wildlife, but also for their ability to stabilize shorelines and prevent erosion, buffering floods and droughts by retaining and slowly releasing water over time, and water filtration,” noted Marisa Bischoff, a Burnaby resident who wrote to the Beacon last week about her concerns regarding the site location.

“Even though the proposed area only consists of 12% of the entire Fraser Foreshore Park, it is well-known that disconnection and fragmentation of habitat significantly reduce ecological value.”

Hurley said that there are “tradeoffs” to a project like GRO and added that it “was expected there was going to be a lot of pushback.”

“People are very passionate– I’m very passionate about our parks. But at the end of the day, we are in a climate emergency and big moves are going to have to be met. And fortunately, or unfortunately, this is one that is a trade-off but to ensure that we can meet our climate change targets that are going to be very difficult to meet,” said Hurley.

“Anybody who thinks this is going to be an easy task, they’re kidding themselves. We can’t play on the outside of this thing, we’re going to roll up our sleeves and get to work, and unfortunately, this is part of that. And it allows us to have a circular use of the organics that are, quite frankly, coming from our homes. And we have an obligation to deal with that.”

The city has outlined a proposed ecological compensation program that it says will mitigate environmental impacts.

The program would be broken up into onsite and offsite work.

At the Fraser Foreshore site, city staff said it would implement forest enhancement, establish a high-value habitat in the Fraser River Basin, and replace a low-quality fish habitat in drainage ditches with a new marsh and tidal creeks to support salmon.

As for offsite compensation, staff is looking to implement enhancements at three city-owned sites to provide a net gain of floodplain forest, marsh, and swamp habitats.

The city says its compensation strategy creates a 3.2-to-1 habitat gain-to-loss ratio (this becomes a 3:7:1 ratio when the city’s preservation of natural swamp area is taken into account), which is “the largest environmental enhancement the city has ever undertaken,” according to a staff report.

If the Foreshore site goes through, Hurley said these enhancements will start before the facility is built.

“[The compensation process] doesn't have to wait until after, I mean, some of it will get done after, but many of the enhancements could be done ahead of time, and certainly, that’s what we plan on doing.”

In a previous interview with the Beacon, Erik Schmidt, the City of Burnaby’s director of public works, said that when staff was reviewing possible sites for the GRO facility, “There [were] no other options the city could pursue,” following an “extensive” amount of time spent reviewing Burnaby’s city-owned land network.

Hurley said that the 21 acres needed for the site are “very hard to find.”

“Staff did look at all of our properties and there was just nothing else that could meet the needs of what needs to happen there,” he said.

Hurley noted that the potential undedication of Fraser Foreshore’s parkland is a “special case” and “would never happen again, [for] as long a timeframe that [he] can see.”

Currently, the city is moving ahead with the Alternative Approval Process (AAP), which allows residents who oppose the undedication of the parkland to build the facility.

If fewer than 10% of electors (16,250) object to the proposal, this is considered overall approval and the city could move forward with greenlighting the park dedication removal bylaw. However, if more than 10% of the electorate objects, the project would not move forward on that site.

Residents who wish to participate in the AAP process can only access the form online (to print), at legislative services at city hall, or at the city’s four public libraries.

The form must be mailed in or dropped off at city hall. The caveats of the AAP raise questions about why this particular process—one that requires residents to physically mail-in or hand deliver a ballot only if they oppose—is meant to work in the city’s favour to green-light the project.

But Hurley says he doesn’t see the AAP, “as much different … than any other process.”

“...There’s a set of guidelines that you have to follow. … and I really don’t see it as being very complex at all.”

When asked why the city didn’t opt for a referendum instead of the AAP, and if this was a strategic move by the city to use this process, Hurley said it came down to efficiency.

“Well, it’s a legislation that the community charter allows us to use. And it was just more efficient.”

During last week's council meeting, Couns. Alison Gu and Daniel Tetrault also made a case that more public consultation was needed about GRO itself.

Hurley said that consultation is still going to happen but “you can’t really do a process until you figure out if you’re gonna go down this direction first.”

In the chance that 10% of the electorate objects to the site proposal, Hurley said the city “will go back to the drawing board.”

“But then we’ll have to consider how we’re going to manage our organics in a different way and that likely means trucking it somewhere all over the province. So that’s not great. That’s not a good solution.”

The future of GRO at the Fraser Foreshore Park site is yet to be determined as the AAP voting process continues until April 28.

Hurley said he’s had “sleepless nights” about the project itself and the issue is “nothing that [he] hasn’t played over in his head 100 times.”

But ultimately, he said he feels confident this is the right path for Burnaby.

“I do understand … people who have concerns. … [They have] the right to be concerned. And …. this is a difficult decision but one that we think is in order to meet our targets that we have set. It’s a road we have to adopt.”