METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (MVRD) - PARKS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Transcription

1 Meeting 1 of 7 METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (MVRD) - PARKS BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR BOARD MEETING Friday, March 31, :00 A.M. 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia Membership and Votes R E V I S E D A G E N D A 1 A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. March 31, 2017 Regular Parks Meeting Agenda That the MVRD Board adopt the agenda for its regular Parks meeting scheduled for March 31, 2017 as circulated. B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 1. February 24, 2017 Regular Parks Meeting Minutes That the MVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular Parks meeting held February 24, 2017 as circulated. On Table C. DELEGATIONS 1. Alison White, Blackberry Artist Society 2. Robert Simons, Port Moody Heritage Society D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. March 31, 2017

2 MVRD Board Agenda - Parks March 31, 2017 Agenda Page 2 of 3 1. REGIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE REPORTS 1.1 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South That the MVRD Board: a) endorse Belcarra South design concept Option 2 which retains the Bole House and Cabin 6 as multi-purpose buildings, gives priority to more natural open space, and opens the area to public use; b) direct staff to forward the report dated March 1, 2017, titled, Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South to the City of Port Moody and to the Village of Belcarra for comments; and c) direct staff to post the report on the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Public Engagement web page. 1.2 Burnaby Lake Regional Park - Agreement Renewal for Picken House with Catching the Spirit Youth Society That the MVRD Board approve the Agreement between the Greater Vancouver Regional District Catching the Spirit Youth Society for a term five-year term and nominal fee of $10 commencing nominal May 1, 2017 and ending April 30, 2022 for use of the Picken House in Burnaby Lake Regional Park. 2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORTS 2.1 Delegations Received at Committee March 2017 That the MVRD Board receive for information the report, dated March 1, 2017, titled Delegations Received at Committee March 2017 containing submissions received from the following delegates: a) Jo Ledingham, Belcarra South Preservation Society. F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN I. OTHER BUSINESS J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

3 MVRD Board Agenda - Parks March 31, 2017 Agenda Page 3 of 3 Added K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the MVRD Board close its regular Parks meeting scheduled for March 31, 2017 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (i) as follows: 90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the MVRD Board adjourn/conclude its regular Parks meeting of March 31, 2017.

4 Section B 1 METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS - PARKS Minutes of the Regular Parks Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:06 a.m. on Friday, February 24, 2017 in the 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Port Coquitlam, Chair, Director Greg Moore Vancouver, Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie Abbotsford, Director Sandy Blue Anmore, Director John McEwen Belcarra, Alternate Director Bruce Drake for Ralph Drew Burnaby, Director Derek Corrigan Burnaby, Director Sav Dhaliwal Burnaby, Director Colleen Jordan Coquitlam, Director Craig Hodge Delta, Alternate Director Bruce McDonald for Lois Jackson Electoral Area A, Director Maria Harris Langley City, Director Rudy Storteboom Langley Township, Director Charlie Fox Langley Township, Director Bob Long Lions Bay, Director Karl Buhr Maple Ridge, Director Nicole Read New Westminster, Director Jonathan Coté North Vancouver City, Director Darrell Mussatto North Vancouver District, Douglas Mackay Dunn for Director Richard Walton Walton MEMBERS ABSENT: Abbotsford, Director Henry Braun Bowen Island, Director Maureen Nicholson Coquitlam, Director Richard Stewart Pitt Meadows, Alternate Director Janis Elkerton for Director John Becker Port Moody, Director Mike Clay Richmond, Director Malcolm Brodie Richmond, Director Harold Steves Surrey, Director Tom Gill Surrey, Alternate Director Vera LeFranc for Bruce Hayne Surrey, Alternate Director Mike Starchuk for Linda Hepner Surrey, Director Judy Villeneuve Vancouver, Alternate Director Adriane Carr for Kerry Jang Vancouver, Director Heather Deal Vancouver, Director Geoff Meggs (arrived at 9:07 a.m.) Vancouver, Director Andrea Reimer Vancouver, Director Gregor Robertson Vancouver, Director Tim Stevenson West Vancouver, Director Michael Smith Surrey, Director Barbara Steele Tsawwassen, Director Bryce Williams White Rock, Director Wayne Baldwin STAFF PRESENT: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Agata Kosinski, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer Minutes of the Regular Parks Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 24, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 3

5 A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. February 24, 2017 Regular (Parks) Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board adopt the agenda for its regular (Parks) meeting scheduled for February 24, 2017 as circulated. CARRIED B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 1. October 28, 2016 Regular (Parks) Meeting Minutes C. DELEGATIONS No items presented. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular (Parks) meeting held October 28, 2016 as circulated. CARRIED D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. E. CONSENT AGENDA The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda, for consideration under Section F. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda: 1.1 Regional Parks Facilities for Connecting People with Nature Policy It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board adopt the recommendation contained in the following item presented in the February 24, 2017 MVRD Board Consent Agenda: 1.2 Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve Background Information and Public Engagement Development of a Regional Park Management Plan CARRIED The item and recommendation referred to above is as follows: 1.2 Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve Background Information and Public Engagement Development of a Regional Park Management Plan Report dated January 3, 2017 from Jamie Vala, Division Manager, Central Area, Regional Parks, providing the MVRD Board with background that contributes to the preparation of the Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Management Plan and requesting authorization to proceed with the first round of public engagement. Minutes of the Regular Parks Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 24, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 4

6 Recommendation: That the MVRD Board: a) authorize staff to undertake public engagement associated with the preparation of a park management plan for Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve; and b) direct staff to report back to the MVRD Board with a summary of the feedback received from the public engagement events and a draft Widgeon March Regional Park Reserve Management Plan. Adopted on Consent F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 9:07 a.m. Director Meggs arrived at the meeting. 1.1 Regional Parks Facilities for Connecting People with Nature Policy Report dated January 23, 2017 from Craig Sobering, Acting Division Manager, Planning and Engineering Services, Regional Parks, seeking MVRD Board approval on establishing formal guidance on the types of facilities that MetroVancouver will develop to provide the visiting public with access to nature for passive outdoor activities in regional parks. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board approve the Regional Parks Facilities for Connecting People with Nature Policy as presented in the report dated January 23, 2017, titled Regional Parks Facilities for Connecting People with Nature Policy. CARRIED G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA 1.1 Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 1244, 2017 Report dated January 23, 2017 from Craig Sobering, Acting Division Manager, Planning and Engineering Services, Regional Parks, seeking MVRD Board approval on establishing formal guidance on the types of facilities that Metro Vancouver will develop to provide the visiting public with access to nature for passive outdoor activities in regional parks. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board give first, second and third reading to Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 1244, CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Parks Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 24, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 5

7 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board pass and finally adopt Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 1244, CARRIED H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented. I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented. K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board close its regular (Parks) meeting scheduled for February 24, 2017 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: 90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district. CARRIED L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) No items presented. M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the MVRD Board adjourn its regular (Parks) meeting of February 24, CARRIED (Time: 9:09 a.m.) CERTIFIED CORRECT Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer Greg Moore, Chair FINAL Minutes of the Regular Parks Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 24, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 6

8 MVRD Board (Parks) On Table Item C 1 Date: Meeting March 31 MVRD Board 2 nd floor 4330 Kingsway Burnaby Interest: Passionate Outdoor Painters Belcarra South Preservation of cabins We would like to retain the cottages and have use for artist in residence cottage on a seasonal basis. Report: Moving Forward on Belcarra South Expansion Action: We would respectively refer to Bylaw 3073 and request no approval on report of Belcarra South expansion including removal of cabins. Summary: We are a group of Lower Mainland artists who paint outdoors, plein air painters. Along with some other artists, we were invited by the residents to paint the Belcarra South cottages back in 2014 and Arriving by car and kayak, we set up in the woods, on the beaches, in the front yards and the backyards of the cottages. We painted porches, front doors, back doors, dog doors, gardens, sheds, outhouses, wagons with flowers. The residents encouraged us to walk through, set up our easels, and paint. The diversity of the cabins has been captured by our members in ways as diverse as the artists themselves; the rustic charm of the cottages inspired our creativity. We are proud of capturing their uniqueness and sharing it with the public at the Port Moody Library, the Port Moody Arts Centre, at a local coffee shop and at the annual Port Moody Art Show - always to enthusiastic response. The rustic, historic nature of the cottages is an inspiration to artists from Port Moody, The City of the Arts, and beyond. Retaining the cottages and perhaps using one for a seasonal artist in residence would broaden the appeal of the park to park visitors. Sincerely, Alison White P.M.A.A. treasurer Blackberry Artist Society Port Moody Art Center Society

9 MVRD Board (Parks) On Table Item C 2 From: Robert Simons Past President Port Moody Heritage Society Board of Interest: METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (MVRD) PARKS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date of Meeting: March 31, 2017 Contact Information: Robert Simons (REDACTED) Interests affected by a report on the Agenda: The Port Moody Heritage Society advocates for the protection and preservation of community assets that represent the heritage attributes, culture and settlement of the region at the head of Burrard Inlet. GVRD Board Agenda Item: 1. REGIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE REPORTS 1.1 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Delegation Speaker: Robert Simons Requested Action of MVRD Board: Our request is that the MVRD Board: a) Not endorse the report, Belcarra Regional Park Moving Forward with Public Use of Belcarra South b) Not endorse Belcarra South design concept Option 2 contained in the report c) Undertake discussion with the City of Port Moody and the Village of Belcarra to establish a Heritage Park within a Park to celebrate and commemorate the historical significance of life and times of early settlers of the Lower Mainland. The Belcarra Cottages and Bole House, being located in a dedicated park with ease of access for visitors, provide a protected location in which a Heritage centre can be developed. The Heritage Park would: 1. Bear a unique testimony to a cultural tradition. 2. Be an example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a stage in our local history. 3. Be an example of traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use representative of human interaction with the environment 4. Be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions

10 MVRD Board (Parks) On Table Item C 2 Rational for requested action by MVRD Board of Directors: The value and importance of protecting, preserving and commemorating Heritage has changed significantly. Twenty-five to thirty years ago heritage buildings and communities were in many cases considered unimportant and of limited value when private or public plans for redevelopment were unveiled. Today Heritage - recent or from historic times - is a prime consideration that all levels of government must consider in management of public lands and in approving redevelopment on private property. Great care and attention is spent in understanding the historical markers of time, location and cultural importance of the heritage elements. Public lands provide protected areas where all levels of government are able to create unique and timeless experiences that celebrate and commemorate the historical record of our culture. The Belcarra Cottages and Bole House, including the adjacent lands on which the buildings are located, offer the last remaining publicly accessible representation of early community settings in Burrard Inlet. The preservation of historic buildings is a one-way street. There is no chance to renovate or to save a historic site once it s gone. And we can never be certain what will be valued in the future.[i] The City of Port Moody has taken the right first step to protect the Belcarra Cottages and Bole House. The next steps are up to Metro Vancouver and the Village of Belcarra to work with the City of Port Moody to create a Heritage Park within a Park in Belcarra Regional Park. i National Trust for Historic Preservation

11 Section E 1.1 To: From: MVRD Board of Directors Regional Parks Committee Date: March 1, 2017 Meeting Date: March 31, 2017 Subject: Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South REGIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD Board: a) endorse Belcarra South design concept Option 2 which retains the Bole House and Cabin 6 as multi-purpose buildings, gives priority to more natural open space, and opens the area to public use; b) direct staff to forward the report dated March 1, 2017, titled, Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South to the City of Port Moody and to the Village of Belcarra for comments; and c) direct staff to post the report on the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Public Engagement web page. At its March 1, 2017 meeting, the Regional Parks Committee considered the attached report titled Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South, dated February 17, The Committee considered all concept options presented in the report and passed option 2 as shown above in underline style for the Board s consideration. Attachment: Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South, dated February 17, Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 7

12 To: From: Regional Parks Committee Jamie Vala, Division Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment Date: February 17, 2017 Meeting Date: March 1, 2017 Subject: Belcarra Regional Park Moving Forward with Public Use of Belcarra South RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD Board: a) endorse Belcarra South design concept Option 1, which balances building retention with open space, by providing public amenities, environmental protection/restoration, two multi-use buildings, two display cabins and opens the area to public use; b) direct staff to forward this report dated February 17, 2017, titled, Belcarra Regional Park Moving Forward with Public Use of Belcarra South to the City of Port Moody and to the Village of Belcarra for comments; and c) direct staff to post this report on the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Public Engagement web page. PURPOSE To seek MVRD Board adoption of a preferred option for Belcarra South based on the results of the public engagement, design and planning process, Metro Vancouver conducted in This report also seeks MVRD Board direction on the next steps in the process. BACKGROUND Belcarra South, part of Belcarra Regional Park, includes a waterfront area, forest, small beaches and eight buildings, six of which have been designated as heritage buildings by Bylaw No adopted on April 28, 2015, by the City of Port Moody. Seven of the buildings have been leased exclusively to the Belcarra South Preservation Society under a succession of agreements since All eight of the buildings are considered to be in poor condition. Four options have now been developed for the future of the area (Attachment 1- Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017). On June 8, 2016, the Regional Parks Committee received for information a committee report titled Belcarra Regional Park Planning Program for Belcarra South. The report outlined a planning and engagement program that is now completed. A GVRD Board resolution adopted on October 25, 2013, guides the direction to staff and states: That the Board re-confirm the policy expressed in the Belcarra Regional Park Plan (1985) and the Pre-design of Belcarra Picnic Area Site Expansion and Admiralty Drive (1994) that providing public access to the waterfront is the priority program and the Belcarra south cabins not be retained Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 8

13 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 2 of 7 It is noted that demolition of the buildings is not consistent with the City of Port Moody s heritage designation of six of the eight buildings. Heritage designation prohibits an owner from renovating or making changes to buildings without a permit. In recognition of the burden that heritage designation can have on owners, the Local Government Act entitles owners to the payment of compensation for any reduction in market value that heritage designation causes. Metro Vancouver has given written notice to the City of Port Moody of the intention to seek such compensation. PLANNING PROGRAM UPDATE At the June 8, 2016 Regional Parks Committee meeting, staff outlined a four phase planning program, which is nearing completion: Phase 1- Program Development - complete Phase 2- Public Engagement - complete; requires posting of results after consideration by the Board Phase 3 - Concept Development - complete; four site concepts are attached for consideration Phase 4- Plan Approval approval of a preferred concept is sought today. The activities undertaken in each phase are described below: Program Development (Phase 1) Staff considered Belcarra Regional Park s context within the regional parks system, key issues, applicable policies, and potential programs. It was recognized that access to the water is Belcarra Regional Park s most valuable feature. The day use area adjacent to a rocky shoreline and mature forest sets it apart from other parks in the regional parks system. Key issues for the planning program for Belcarra South were identified as increased user demand, limited availability of vehicle parking, heritage status of existing buildings, and archaeological sensitivities in the area. These issues were identified in the June 8, 2016 Regional Park Committee report and served as the basis for panels, displays and questionnaires in the pubic engagement process. Public Engagement (Phase 2) Methods An extensive public engagement process was carried out, locally in Belcarra Regional Park which generated a local to sub regional audience (63% from neighboring municipalities) and regionally by survey research. In-park engagement - Public engagement events were held at the Belcarra picnic area on July 14 and 16, 2016 and at White Pine Beach on July 21, These events were attended by 174 participants. Metro Vancouver received 196 responses to a questionnaire that was available both in park and on-line. Representatives of the Belcarra South Preservation Society attended the in-park events at the picnic area. Regional engagement - A region wide on-line survey was carried out by a market research company that generated 1,422 completed surveys. The survey sample is considered representative of the Metro Vancouver population on the basis of age, gender, and municipality of residence. This survey explained the situation at Belcarra South and some of the choices to be made. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 9

14 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 3 of 7 A comparison of the size and scope of the two samples is attached (Attachment 2 Survey Methodology and Respondent Profile, January 10, 2017). All of the respondents to in-park engagement were users of Belcarra Regional Park, with 53% visiting at least once per month, representing a local to sub-regional perspective. In the regional survey, over half of the respondents (52%) had visited Belcarra Regional Park at some point, and 26% had visited in the past year. For complete results of in-park engagement, see the consultant s report Belcarra South Planning Program Engagement Summary, dated August 10, 2016 (Attachment 5). For convenience of reading, this lengthy attachment is placed at the end of this Board report. While the engagement process focused on soliciting feedback on site specific land use planning issues, many of the written comments received were focused on the residency of the cabins and these are also included in the Engagement Summary. For complete results of the regional survey, see the consultant report Regional Park Survey: A Survey of Metro Vancouver Residents, dated November 2016 (Attachment 6). For convenience of reading, this lengthy attachment is placed at the end of this Board report. In the course of the planning process, staff also held discussions with member municipalities, First Nations, stakeholders, park users, and the general public. Staff held in-person meetings with representatives from the Village of Belcarra, City of Port Moody, the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, and the Belcarra South Preservation Society. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS Top Priorities for Improvements at Belcarra South There is congruence in the results of the in-park and regional respondents top priorities for funding future improvements at Belcarra Regional Park. Table 1 Respondents Top Priorities for Funding Future Improvements at Belcarra South In-park Regional Survey (1)Environmental restoration, interpretation (1)Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection and protection (2)Improving public access to existing forested (2) Providing new park facilities lands and beach areas (3) Providing new park facilities (3) Improving access to existing forested lands and beach areas Renovating existing buildings is not a top priority for either the in-park or regional residents. A comparison of the two survey results is shown in graphic form (Attachment 3- Public Engagement Survey (Priorities), January 10, 2017). Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 10

15 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Top Uses for Buildings at Belcarra South However, when specifically asked to rank their choices about uses for existing buildings within the park from a list of choices, the support for preserving historic buildings emerged. (Attachment 3 Public Engagement Survey (Priorities), January 10, 2017). This appeared quite similarly in both the inpark and regional resident s surveys. Table 2 Respondents Top Priorities for Buildings Uses In-park Regional (1) Preserved historic buildings (1) Shelters for picnicking (2) Education and Interpretive functions (2) Preserved historic buildings (3) Caretaker location (3) Education/ Nature house Building uses and approaches if resources are limited Regional respondents were asked to determine their priorities for retaining the Belcarra South cabins under the assumption that the costs of renovating and maintaining the buildings would reduce resources for other parks services. In the context of budgetary constraints and trade-offs almost 2/3 of respondents (63%) supported removing some or all of the existing buildings in Belcarra South (Attachment 4, Public Engagement Survey (Removal of Buildings), January 10, 2017). There was no equivalent question asked during the in-park survey. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT (PHASE 3) The concept phase involved developing and costing four potential site design options under different scenarios to gain a better understanding of potential financial and programmatic implications. The results of the public engagement process and research conducted during program development were used to develop options, which consist of different combinations of picnic areas, trails, restored areas, and additional vehicle parking. The options also contemplated retention and removal of different combinations of the existing buildings in Belcarra South. Staff assumed that all options are open for discussion. Some options are presented which do not meet the GVRD Board s October 25, 2013 resolution and direction to staff. By the same token, some options are not consistent with Port Moody s heritage designation of six of the cabins. Concept Options Four concept options have been developed: 1. Balanced Option balances building retention with natural open space 2. Pragmatic Option retains only buildings that can be used; priority given to more natural space 3. Heritage Bylaw Option - retains only the buildings designated Port Moody s heritage bylaw 4. Natural Area Option focuses on protection of natural areas, no buildings are retained. A summary of key characteristics of the four design concept options is in the Table 3 below. For further information, Attachment 1, Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 provides a diagram of each of the options with additional information. All options include beach access, new picnic area(s), and varying levels of habitat restoration. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 11

16 MVRD Board (Parks) On Table Replacement Page E1.1 - agenda page 12 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Table 3.0 Summary of Four Concept Options Option 1 Balanced Option 2 Pragmatic Option 3 Port Moody Heritage Bylaw Option 4 Natural Description This option balances building retention with natural open space This option retains only buildings that can be used; priority is given to more natural open space This option retains buildings protected by Port Moody s Heritage Bylaw Capital Costs $2.5 M $2.3M $2.2M $0.8 M O+M Costs $100,000 $92,000 $68,000 $42,000 # of Buildings Retained # of Buildings Removed (Bole House 8 Uses of Buildings Retained Bole House & Cabin 6 Multi-purpose Building (available for public use) Cabins 2, 3 Display only Bole House & Cabin 6 Multi-purpose Building (available for public use) removed) Cabin 6 Multi-purpose Building (available for public use) Cabins 2,3,5,7 Display only This option focuses on protecting natural areas Parking Spaces New Trail 479 m 521 m 479 m 901 m Upgraded road 422 m 422 m 422m N/A Compliance with Port Moody by-law Non-compliant Non-compliant Most Compliant* Non-compliant N/A *Cabin 4 - There is no option that re-builds cabin 4. A tree fell on this cabin in 2014 prior to the heritage designation. Staff thinks there is little value in re-building it because there are many other cabins to consider. However, staff also note that this cabin is designated as a heritage building under Port Moody s Bylaw No and thus the approach is technically non-compliant with the current bylaw. PREFERRED OPTION AND RATIONALE Staff are recommending design concept Option 1, which opens the area up to the public, provides two multi-purpose buildings for public use and two buildings as commemorative displays. Option 1 provides for additional trails, picnic area and modest parking increases. Option 1 balances public access and retention of heritage buildings. Building footprints of former cabins can be marked to provide an opportunity for historical interpretation and are turned into picnic areas. Parts of the site are restored to increase ecological function. The multi-purpose buildings can address the public s desire for educational and nature programming. Option 1 represents a compromise between MVRD Board direction and Port Moody heritage bylaw, in Metro Vancouver staff s view, by providing both public access to the site with the retention of some buildings. This option also responds to public

17 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 6 of 7 priorities. In the regional survey the public was asked to comment on removal of the buildings at Belcarra South given financial trade-offs, a majority supported removal of some or all of the buildings. NEXT STEPS If Alternative 1 is approved by the MVRD Board, staff will forward this report to the City of Port Moody and the Village of Belcarra for comment. The summaries of the public engagement will be posted on the website and participants and key stakeholders will be notified of the results. This will close off the engagement process, but if people have further comments they will be asked to send them in by letter. Staff will report back to the Board with comments from the two municipalities. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the MVRD Board: a) endorse Belcarra South design concept Option 1, which balances building retention with open space, by providing public amenities, environmental protection/restoration, two multi-use buildings, two display cabins and opens the area to public use; b) direct staff to forward this report dated February 17, 2017, titled, Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South to the City of Port Moody and to the Village of Belcarra for comments; and c) direct staff to post this report on the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Public Engagement web page. 2. That the Regional Parks Committee receive the report dated February 17, 2017, titled Belcarra Regional Park Moving Forward with Public Use of Belcarra South for information and provide alternative direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the MVRD Board approves Alternative 1, design concept Option 1 requires $2.5 million in capital costs and generates approximately $100,000 in annual operating costs, after the area is opened to the public. The Board will have to consider the capital cost of implementing this option along with other possible regional park capital improvements when the 2018 Capital Replacement and Development budget is prepared. Current costs are order of magnitude and therefore may vary plus or minus 25%. The 2017 budget has incorporated $150,000, to undertake the detailed design work at Belcarra South, which is necessary to guide construction. This work has not yet been started. The cost estimates will be refined as the design program proceeds. All of the concept design options have capital and ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will need to be considered if the Board approves a different option under Alternative 2. A summary of the costs for each of the options can be found in Attachment 1, Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report marks the completion of the planning program for Belcarra South. The public engagement process included both an in-park (local/sub-regional) component as well as a regionally representative survey. Both at the local and regional level support was strongest for funding of environmental restoration, interpretation and protection, improved public access to forested land Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 13

18 Belcarra Regional Park Moving forward with Public Use of Belcarra South Regional Parks Committee Meeting: March 1, 2017 Page 7 of 7 and beaches, and providing new park facilities. Renovating and maintaining existing buildings was ranked as a relatively low priority for respondents when measured against the provision of specific services such as trails and picnic shelters, and in the context of limited funding. The material gathered during program development and public engagement was used to develop design options for the Belcarra South. Four design options consider a range of possible programs for the open space and the buildings that address to varying degrees past Board direction and Port Moody s heritage bylaw. Staff recommend Alternative 1 that the Board approve design concept Option 1 of the Belcarra South planning options which provides public amenities, environmental protection/restoration, two multiuse buildings and two display buildings. This option opens the area to public use and represents a compromise between past Board direction and Port Moody s heritage bylaw. If approved, this report and the resultant Board resolution will be forwarded to the City of Port Moody and Village of Belcarra with a request for comments. Staff will report back when comments are received and at that point the design work and capital budgeting to set the stage for public use of the Belcarra South area can be confirmed. Concurrently staff will post information presented in this report on the Belcarra South planning webpage to notify participants of the results of the engagement process. Further comments can be sent in by letter. Attachments: (orbit doc ) 1. Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, Survey Methodology and Respondent Profile, January 10, Public Engagement Survey (Priorities), January 10, Public Engagement Survey (Removal of Buildings), January 10, Belcarra Regional Park Belcarra South Planning Program Engagement Summary Final Report, August 10, 2016, prepared by Parsons Studio. 6. Regional Park Survey: A Survey of Metro Vancouver Residents, November 2016, prepared by Justason Market Intelligence. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 14

19 Attachment 1: Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 EXISTING CONDITIONS Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks

20 Attachment 1: Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 SUMMARY OF DESIGN OPTIONS Option 1 Balanced Design Approach: This option balances building retention with natural open space. Two buildings (Bole House & Cabin 6) are retained for public purposes and two (cabins 2& 3) for commemorative display purposes. Estimated Costs: Construction $2.5M Annual Operations and Maintenance $100K Improvements Better beach access Adds to trail network Adds picnic area and picnic tables Increases parking (75 spots) Restores disturbed areas and pond Interpretive elements provided at sites of removed cabins Buildings Retains cabins 2, 3, 6. Cabins 1, 4, 5 and 7 are removed. Bole House and Cabin 6 are retained for use as seasonal multi-use buildings. Cabins 2 and 3 are retained for display purposes. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks

21 Attachment 1: Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 Option 2 Pragmatic Design Approach: This design retains only buildings that can be used; priority given to more natural open space. Estimated Costs: Construction $2.3M Annual Operations and Maintenance $92K Improvements Buildings Better beach access Adds to trail network Adds picnic area and picnic tables Increases parking (50 spots) Restores disturbed areas and pond Interpretative elements provided at sites of removed cabins Adds viewing deck as interpretive feature Retains Cabin 6 and the Bole House for use as a seasonal multi-use buildings. Cabins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 removed. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks

22 Attachment 1: Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 Option 3 Port Moody Heritage Bylaw Design Approach: This design retains buildings protected by the City of Port Moody s Heritage Bylaw. Estimated Costs: Construction $1.8M Annual Operations and Maintenance $68K Improvements Buildings Better beach access Adds to trail network Adds picnic tables Adds parking (75) Restores disturbed areas and pond Adds viewing deck as interpretive feature Cabins 2, 3, 5 and 7 preserved as displays (not open to public, for viewing only) Cabin 6 is retained as a seasonal multi-use building. The Bole House and Cabins 1 and 4 are removed. There is no option that re-builds cabin 4. A tree fell on this cabin in 2014 prior to the heritage designation. Staff thinks there is little value in re-building it because there are many other cabins to consider. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks

23 Attachment 1: Summary Belcarra South Concept Design Options, February 17, 2017 Option 4 Natural Design Approach: This design focuses protecting natural areas. Estimated Costs: Construction $0.8M Annual Operations and Maintenance $42K Improvements Buildings Better beach access Adds to trail network Adds picnic areas Restores disturbed areas and pond Interpretive elements at sites of removed cabins All buildings removed. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks

24 BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING SURVEY METHODOLOGY & RESPONDENT PROFILE a. In-park consultation (local/sub-regional) 196 responses { 59 } in-park online 137 Public engagement events were held at the Belcarra Picnic Area on July 14 and 16, 2016 and at White Pine Beach on July 21, Attendees at these events were encouraged to review display boards and complete feedback forms. The same boards and feedback form were posted to the Metro Vancouver website from July For full results, see Attachment 5. %of respondents out of region 3% northwest 2% southeast 8% southwest 3% central 15% other northeast 6% Coquitlam Port Moody 16% 20% Belcarra 27% Neighbouring municipalities 63% [northeast sector] 0 RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY OF ORIGIN (by regional sector) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% < 5x per year 31.4% 15.2% 13.6% 1x per 2 months 1x per month 18.3% 5.2% 16.2% 2-3x per month 1x per week >1x per week 53% AT LEAST ONCE PER MONTH %of respondents RESPONDENT FREQUENCY OF PARK VISITS b. Region-wide survey 1422 { } online responses Staff worked with a consultant to deliver an online survey to a representative sample of Metro Vancouver residents to gain a regional perspective on planning issues relating to acquired buildings in the park system generally, as well as at Belcarra Regional Park and Crippen Regional Park specifically. For full results, see Attachment 6. R E S P O N D E N T M U N I C I P A L I T Y O F O R I G I N Respondents comprise a representative sample weighted to match age and gender characteristics and regional distribution of Metro Vancouver residents 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% don t know ~1% 48% have not visited 26% prior to, but not this year 19% < 5x per year 2% 52% have visited at some time 1x per 2 months 1x per month 2% 2-3x per month 1% 1x per week 1% >1x per week <1% AT LEAST ONCE PER MONTH ~4% % of respondents Attch 2: Survey Methodology & Respondent Profile, January 10, 2017 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 20 RESPONDENT FREQUENCY OF PARK VISITS

25 BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PRIORITIES a. In-park consultation (local/sub-regional) PRIORITIZE, FROM A LIST OF 6 FACTORS, INVESTMENTS IN THE BELCARRA SOUTH AREA (3 highest scoring areas shown here) FROM 10 OPTIONS, SELECT THE BEST PUBLIC USES FOR THE BOLE HOUSE & CABINS (3 highest scoring uses shown here) Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection % Preserved historic buildings % Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas % Education and interpretive functions % Providing new park facilities % of responses % Caretaker location % of responses % MOST important 2nd most important Strongly agree Somewhat agree b. Region-wide survey PRIORITIZE, FROM A LIST OF 6 FACTORS, INVESTMENTS IN THE BELCARRA SOUTH AREA (3 highest scoring areas shown here) FROM 10 OPTIONS, SELECT THE 2 BEST USES FOR PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS ON REGIONAL PARK LAND (3 highest scoring uses shown here) Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection % Shelters for picnicking 38% Providing new park facilities Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas % of responses % 38% Preserved historic buildings Education/ Nature House % of responses % 28% MOST important 2nd most important [Note: Best & 2nd best uses not differentiated] Attch 3: Public Engagement Survey (Priorities), January 10, 2017 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 21

26 BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS b. Region-wide survey Given the buildings heritage status, and that the cost of renovating and maintaining the buildings will reduce resources for other parks services and facilities, how do you feel about retaining the cabins? Remove some 57% Remove none 21% Remove all 6% No preference 16% % of responses Attch 4: Public Engagement Survey (Removal of Buildings), January 10, 2017 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 22

27 Attachment 5 METRO VANCOUVER BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY FINAL REPORT AUGUST 10, 2016 Prepared by: Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 23

28 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 24

29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION + BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE WORK 1.2 STUDY AREA 1.3 DETAILS of the EVENTS 1.4 NOTIFICATIONS 1.5 MEDIA COVERAGE 1.6 ATTENDEES 2.0 FEEDBACK SUMMARY 2.1 FEEDBACK FORMS 2.2 PARK USAGE 2.3 ENVIRONMENT 2.4 ACCESS AND AMENITIES 2.5 THE BOLE HOUSE AND CABINS 2.6 PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE 3.0 CONCLUSION APPENDICES A. STAKEHOLDER LETTER B. SITE SIGNAGE C. FEEDBACK FORM D. PROJECT BUSINESS CARD E. OPEN HOUSE BOARDS F. TRANSCRIPTS OF COMMENTS FROM FEEDBACK FORMS METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 1 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 25

30 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 26

31 1.0 INTRODUCTION + BACKGROUND I Belcarra South Picnic Area I Belcarra South Beaches and Cabins I Bole House circa 1980 from Forest to Fjord by Ralph Drew 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE WORK Metro Vancouver operates a regional park system composed of 23 regional parks, three regional reserves, two ecological conservancy areas and five regional green ays. he mandate of Metro Vancouver Regional Parks is to protect important natural areas and provide opportunities for people to connect to nat re. As one of the 23 regional parks, Belcarra Regional Park is valued because of its water focused activities like walking/ hiking on ater side trails, s imming, crabbing fishing, boating and environmental interpretation and ste ardship. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks is currently undertaking a park planning process at Belcarra Regional Park for the south picnic area of the park. he intent of the ork is to Assess current issues and opportunities; Determine future needs and potential programming and; Develop a conceptual plan that takes community desires into consideration. Over the last several years, this area of Belcarra Regional Park, particularly in the summer months, has become much b sier d e to regional pop lation gro th. isitation to the park overall has increased 15% percent since 2010 and 22% to the icnic rea over the same period. here are days hen the parking, park trails and the picnic area are over capacity. Also to be considered in the planning work are the existing Bole House and seven cabins which are owned by Metro anco ver. Si of the cabins and the ole o se are located in City of Port Moody and one cabin is located in the Village of elcarra. f the seven cabins, si are c rrently tenanted, on an ann al lease basis. abin and the ole o se are not c rrently occ pied. n the ole o se as placed on ort oody s eritage Register and in 2015 the six cabins were designated protected heritage property under a City of Port Moody Heritage esignation yla o.. As part of this planning work Metro Vancouver Regional Parks wanted to consult with the community on the issues and opport nities facing the so th area of the park. Working ith a cons ltant team comprised of St dio arsons and HAPA Collaborative, Metro Vancouver undertook public engagement in ly,. his report s mmari es the feedback received from the p blic. METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 2 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 27

32 1.2 STUDY AREA Belcarra Regional Park borders the Villages of Belcarra and nmore and the ity of ort oody. he St dy rea incl des the parking area, picnic shelters, concessions buildings and the Bole House and cabins area to the south of the existing picnic area. Bedwell Bay Rd. picnic area parking main beach Tum Tumay Whueton Dr. cabin beach bole beach LEGEND extent of study area hiking trail maintenance road access road existing cabin N m I Belcarra South Planning Program Study Area METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 3 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 28

33 1.3 DETAILS OF THE EVENTS hree pen o ses ere held in ly, to inform the community on the project and allow attendees to ask estions ab t the project and provide feedback. he events ere held on. Thursday, July 16, 2016 at Belcarra Park Picnic Area from 11am - 3pm;. Saturday, July 18, 2016 at Belcarra Park Picnic Area from am pm as part of anada s arks ay and. Thursday, July 21, 2016 at White ine each from am pm. he format of the pen o ses as a series of eight presentation boards providing information on Regional Park Context; History and Past Land Uses; Planning History including a summary of previous planning and design reports for this area; So th icnic St dy rea Access and Amenities; he ole o se and abins and nvironmental onsiderations. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks staff and the consultant team were on hand to guide attendees through the boards and ans er estions. eedback forms ere provided to attendees to fill o t. dditionally, project b siness cards ere provided so attendees co ld fill o t the form on line.. Newspaper Advertisements Belcarra Barnacle, July edition of the Newsletter and; ri ity e s dvertisement on Wednesday, ly st and riday, ly th,.. Mail out and , letter invitation to stakeholders: Park Associations and park user groups; Municipal partners - Belcarra, Anmore, Coquitlam and ort oody also met in person Parks Canada; irst ations elcarra So th reservation Society in person Ste ardship ro ps ro ps ho book the icnic Shelters Park partners, licensees and concessionaires; Other ecological, naturalist, preservation, heritage and park ser gro ps. total of letters ere sent o t to stakeholders.. A poster was provided at the information kiosk at the park in advance of the events. t sho ld be noted, that members of the elcarra So th preservation Society remained present at both pen o ses at the picnic area and fre ently interacted ith park sers. BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK Belcarra South Planning Program Public Open House No. 1 Thursday, July am 3 pm Location: Belcarra Picnic Area Public Open House No. 2 as part of Canada s Parks Day Saturday, July am 4 pm Public Consultation for Belcarra South Planning Program Metro Vancouver is pleased to host two upcoming public consultation events at the Belcarra Picnic Area to: I Open House set up for Thursday, July 16, NOTIFICATIONS A variety of methods were used to notify the public about the pen o ses. he follo ing provides a synopsis of notification methods. More Information: I Newspaper Advertisement METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 29

34 1.5 MEDIA COVERAGE here have been several articles in local papers covering the topic of the pen o ses and the cabins. he follo ing table o tlines the kno n media coverage to date. DATE SOURCE NOTES ne, ne, ne, ly, ly, ri ity e s anco ver S n Province Newspaper on-line version anco ver S n ri ity e s rticle by Sarah ayne on the project rticle by elly Sinoski on the project Letter to the Editor by eborah St ck, elcarra Resident rticle by elly Sinoski on the cottages at Crippen Regional Park on o en sland. he article also discussed the elcarra ark cabins. rticle by Sarah ayne on the upcoming Open Houses 1.6 ATTENDEES here as s stained attendance at the t o pen o ses at the so th picnic area. here ere fe er attendees at White ine each. A A Abbottsford 1 Belcarra 27 Burnaby 5 Coquitlam Delta 3 Doha, Qatar 1 angley o nship 3 Maple Ridge 1 Mission 1 Pitt Meadows 2 Port Coquitlam 3 Port Moody 20 North Vancouver 1 S rrey Vancouver 10 West anco ver 1 White ock 1 lease note the n mbers re ect gro ps of people rather than individ als. Locals were aware of the event and came to the park with an interest in learning more and providing feedback. ther attendees were at the park for recreational purposes and discovered the event hile they ere there. ttendees came from all over the Lower Mainland with the majority coming from elcarra, ort oody and o itlam. ATTENDANCE No. Item Approx. No. 1 h rsday, ly, 2 Sat rday, ly, h rsday, ly, 20 METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 5 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 30

35 2.0 FEEDBACK SUMMARY 2.1 FEEDBACK FORMS The primary method to provide input was through a feedback form distributed in persons at the Open Houses and provided on-line. The feedback forms were posted on-line one week in advance of the Open Houses and remained on-line for several days following the events. Business cards were also provided at the event with a link to the on-line form. FEEDBACK FORMS RETURNED 2.2 PARK USAGE Q1 What were your doing at the Park today? The majority of respondents came to the park for walking and hiking and also for picnicking. Some came for boating, fishing and crabbing and kayaking or canoeing. A number of people came with the intent of attending the public engagement event. Please note that respondents could choose more than one activity. No. Item Approx. No Thursday, July 16, 2016, South Picnic Site Saturday, July 18, 2016 South Picnic Site Thursday, July 21, 2016 White Pine Beach On-line 137 Total 196 The feedback form was designed to assist in the development of a future concept plan for the Belcarra Park South Study Area. It was divided into a series of sub-sections to gain insight into the following topics: Park Usage; The Environment; Access and Amenities; The Bole House and Cabins and; Priorities for the Future. For ease of use, the questions were developed with a series of check boxes with space for additional comments. The verbatim comments from each of the feedback forms responses are provided in Appendix D. The comments are summarized under each of the above topic areas, as follows. I Reported Activities in the Park (on Open Houses Days shown as a percentage) Q2 How often do you come to this regional park? While the majority of people come to the park less than five times a year, in aggregate, there are many people that come between once every two months to more than once a week. I Visiting Frequency (shown as a percentage) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 6 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 31

36 2.3 ENVIRONMENT Q3 Part of Metro Vancouver s mandate is to Protect Natural Areas. Which of the following would you support in regards to the environment? estion foc sed on the mandate of etro anco ver egional arks in order to gain an nderstanding of the p blic s s pport for environmental protection environmental interpretation and ed cation and environmental restoration. he responses, ere over helmingly s pportive of all three options. Individual comments from the feedback forms ranged from general comments on the environment and balancing the environment with historic elements, to addressing invasive species appropriately to the protection of the nat ral environment. here as interest in ensuring the protection of wildlife and trees in the park and ensuring that improvements ill not lead to degradation of the park. ne person s ggested limiting access if it maintained the natural quality of the park and that access to sensitive areas be managed rather than restricted. Well placed, environmental, ed cational displays at the start of trails, ere seen as beneficial. ne person commented that interpreters o ld also be beneficial. n mber of comments identified the historic val e of the cabins to the comm nity. Some see the tenants as assisting in maintaining the heritage of the cabin area. iscellaneo s comments identified the need to clean p the geese droppings to make the grass more usable and better monitoring of the crabbers to control their waste and garbage. ne person e pressed concern over any consideration of sing the picnic area for night time se. I Level of Support for Environmental Options (% per option) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 7 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 32

37 2.4 ACCESS and AMENITIES Q4 If improvements were to be made to the Belcarra South area which improvements would you support? Q5 Q6 Q7 How did you get to the regional park today? Were you able to get to the regional park easily and safely? Does the busy nature of the facilities; trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, washrooms, concession; in the study area impact your park experience? With the increase in visitation and the e isting challenges ith parking d ring the s mmer months, there was a collective desire to gauge support for a number of improvements that have been disc ssed in previo s plans and reports. estion also aimed to assess people s perceptions to ards access to the so th picnic area. opping the list of potential improvements as providing access to beach areas ith. strongly agreed and. some hat agreed to this improvement for an aggregate of s pport at.. his as follo ed closely by adding to the trail net orks ith an aggregate of s pport at. roviding o tho ses as also s pported ith. strongly agreed and. some hat agreed to this improvement for an aggregate of s pport at. Of the responders, 55% either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed to improving picnic shelters areas. mproving parking at as s pported by. of those ho strongly agreed or somewhat agreed to this improvement, compared to those who disagreed or some hat disagreed at.. here as the least s pport for improving cycling infrastr ct re. he majority of people responded that they arrived at the park by car first., then by alking. and lastly by transit., boat., and bike.. I Level of Support for Access and Amenity Improvements (% per option) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 8 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 33

38 A A rom the appro imately comments on improvements, there appeared to be a desire not to overdevelop the park and to keep the park as nat ral as possible. esponders felt the nat ral ality of the area is part of the e perience and the charm of the park. While some could see improvements like additional picnic shelters for smaller groups, adding trails and selective locations for outhouses, responders indicated that it should be done sensitively to enhance and not detract from the nat ral character. mprovements co ld be made b t not at the e pense of the nat ral assets and character. While a fe comments e pressed opposition to additional parking, those in favo r wanted additional parking to be contingent on concentrating parking areas adjacent to activity, tili ing e isting dist rbed areas first and ens ring that ndist rbed, nat ral areas are not converted to parking. dditional comments ere provided on access to beach areas. gain, of those ho commented, a fe ere not in favo r. Several more ere in favo r. verall, balancing access ith preservation of nat ral area is seen as preferable. One responder commented on the use of viewpoints to limit access while protecting the environment. In response to the question did people find they were able to get to the park easily and safely? - appro imately ans ered yes. n relation to this estion people commented on developing a park and ride system to reduce the number of cars and the need to e pand parking. t as s ggested that improvements co ld be made to signage in ort oody to indicate hen the lots are f ll and red ce the traffic to the area. Some people noted arriving by boat, kayak or cycling. s noted previo sly most arrived by car. ne person indicated that if greater improvements ere to be made to the park, the access road may need improvement too. estion seven highlighted congestion in the park by asking Does the busy nature of the facilities; trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, washrooms, concession; in the study area impact your park experience? nterestingly it as almost a fifty fifty split ith a little nder half of the responders. saying it did not impact their e perience and a little over half. saying that it did. Of the responders that felt that it did not impact their experience, many commented that they pick and choose their times to come to the park like weekdays, off hours or off season. ne person felt that it might not be economically ise to plan the park aro nd the peak days in the s mmer months. Of the responders who felt that it did impact their experience, several commented that while noise, bar-b-que smoke, crowding, particularly of the picnic area was not pleasant or ideal, they were willing to tolerate the negative aspects in order to maintain the natural ality of the park. reasonable balance needed to be maintained bet een access and improvements and the overall environmental health of the park. METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 9 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 34

39 2.5 THE BOLE HOUSE and CABINS Q8 Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of determining the most appropriate uses for publicly owned structures, like the Bole House and the cabins, in Belcarra Regional Park. What do you think are the best public uses for these structures? he ole o se and cabins are located along the edge of the coast line so th of the e isting picnic area. s part of the process looking into improvements for the so th picnic area and in light of the ity of ort oody s eritage esignation yla of the cabins in, and placing ole o se on the eritage egister in, etro anco ver egional arks anted to gain insight into the potential f t re ses for the ole o se and cabins. he greatest s pport for f t re ses as for preserving the historical b ildings ith strongly agreed and. some hat agreed. n aggregate, this represents. agreeing. he ne t set of s pported ses ere ed cation and interpretive f nctions. caretaker accommodation., artist, st dio and gallery space., respectively. Uses least supported were some of the potential revenue generating uses like recreational e ipment rental food services space for events and short term stays. While in previo s estions responders supported improvements for small picnic shelters, using the cabins as potential shelters for picnicking as not highly favo red. I Level of Support for Public Uses (% per option) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 10 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 35

40 A he commentary from this estion foc sed on the follo ing aspects related to the ole ose and cabins. S pport for contin ed tenancy of the cabins appro imately comments S pport for the perceived caretaker and maintenance role of the tenants appro imately comments S pport for heritage preservation of the cabins appro imately comments ith some identifying support for retaining the tenants; S pport for the retention, preservation and re p rposing the ole o se appro imately comments S pport artist in residency st dio space ses appro imately comments S pport for the c lt ral heritage of the cabins and the comm nity appro imately comments ther ses respondents commented on short term rentals of the cabins irst ations ed cation and history ed cation and programming historical interpretation camping and miscellaneo s. While the majority of responders to the feedback forms s pport the preservation of the cabins and allowing the tenants to remain, there were several responders that were in favour of opening up the cabin area and beaches for public use and not having the cabins tenanted. s one responder noted occ pation of the cabins is a sensitive iss e. t sho ld be noted that hile the commentary favo red tenancy, it is etro anco ver s position that e cl sive residential se is not a regional park service. METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 11 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 36

41 2.6 PRIORITIES for the FUTURE Q9 Please prioritize from 1 most important, to 6 least important, how funding on future improvements for this area of the park should be spent? s part of the planning ork, it as determined that prioriti ing improvements as important for the public to comment on in relation to the future planning for the south picnic area. esponders ere asked to prioriti e their preferences for improvements from least important to most important. ositive responses ere achieved hen ranked or better. n analy ing the data, aggregated positive responses ith higher percentages achieved the highest priority. Environmental restoration, interpretation, and protection, with an aggregated response of., ere identified as the most important improvements to p t f nding to ards. he next two improvements - improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas at. and improving park facilities at., ranked lo er than environmental improvements yet still aro nd importance. he improvement ith the least importance as improving access for cycling at. I Prioritization of Funding (% per improvement) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 12 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 37

42 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 38

43 3.0 CONCLUSION blic s pport as strongest for estions specific to environmental protection and for selective improvements to pedestrian park access and amenities. here as s pport for some ne ses of the ole o se and cabins and heritage preservation as identified in the responder s individ al, hand ritten comments as being important. In regards to funding of park amenities it is clear that environmental restoration, interpretation, and protection, improving public access, and provision of public facilities trails, displays, o tho ses, picnic areas is here the p blic feels etro anco ver sho ld be spending regional dollars. he feedback provided identified the follo ing People using the park come from all over the Lower Mainland with the majority of sers coming from the ri city area ity of o itlam, ity of ort o itlam, ity of ort oody and from the illage of elcarra. Walking hiking and picnicking are the foc s for most people s visits. clear and strong interest as identified for the protection of the nat ral environment. While improvements co ld be made, improvements sho ld be done sensitively to enhance the nat ral character of the park. Specific improvements might incl de selective locations for access to beach areas, improved trail net orks, introd ction of an o tho se s, and consideration for the addition of picnic areas. blic feedback s ggests that sheltered picnic areas are not necessarily needed. While some e pressed opposition to additional parking, others felt that additional parking could be integrated into a plan contingent on ensuring undisturbed, natural areas are not tili ed for parking. he majority of hand ritten comments identified the historic val e of the cabins to the comm nity. Some see the tenants as assisting in the preservation of the heritage of the cabin area. S pported adaptive ses for the cabins, in the f t re, incl de ed cational and interpretive f nctions, artist st dios, and a caretaker residence. Priorities for the future should focus on environmental protection, restoration, and interpretation first ith improvements to access and facilities to enhance the overall nat ral park e perience. estoring e isting b ildings and adapting them for ne uses, improving vehicular access and improving access for cyclists were the lowest priorities. NEXT STEPS aking the above into consideration, the ne t steps in the park planning process co ld be Develop a couple of environmentally sensitive concept plans for the south picnic area of the park including preliminary budgeting and; resent the engagement findings and concept plans to the p blic and etro anco ver egional arks committee. METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST, 2016 PAGE 13 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 39

44 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 40

45 APPENDICES A. STAKEHOLDER LETTER B. SITE SIGNAGE C. FEEDBACK FORM D. PROJECT BUSINESS CARD E. OPEN HOUSE BOARDS F. TRANSCRIPTS OF COMMENTS FROM FEEDBACK FORMS METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM AUGUST 2016 PAGE 14 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 41

46 8 metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION APPENDIX A Regional Parks Central Area Office Tel Fax July 4, 2016 File: PA BEL To Whom It May Concern, Re: Public Engagement: Belcarra South Planning Program, Belcarra Regional Park Metro Vancouver would like to notify you about an upcoming planning program to develop a shared vision for the land south of the picnic area in Belcarra Regional Park. See Attachment 1 for a map showing the extent of the Study Area. The planning program will address issues arising from increased user demand including congestion, insufficient parking, and lack of public access to shoreline and park facilities. Planning will also seek input on how to balance the interests of public usage with historical conservation with respect to buildings in this part of the regional park while adhering to current Metro Vancouver policy. As part of the work Metro Vancouver wants to engage with stakeholders and the public at the beginning of this process. Two upcoming open houses will be hosted by Metro Vancouver at the Belcarra Regional Park Picnic Area to: review the current issues and opportunities facing this area of the regional park; answer questions from stakeholders and the public and; gather input from stakeholders and the public on future park programming and development. Your feedback is important and will help shape the future of this part of Belcarra Regional Park. Public Open House No. 1 Thursday, July 14, 2016 Picnic Area, Belcarra Regional Park llam-3pm Public Open House No. 2 {as part of Canada's Parks Day) Saturday, July 16, 2016 Picnic Area, Belcarra Regional Park 10am-4pm Drop by anytime during these events to provide your feedback. For more information about the planning program visit the Metro Vancouver website and search the term "Belcarra Planning Program". An online questionnaire will be available from July 7 th until July 24 th, Sincerely, K Park Planner, Regional Parks Central Area KE/gp Attachment: Belcarra Regional Park -Map showing extent of study area Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4GB Greater Vancouver Regional District Greater Vancouver Water District Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 42

47 APPENDI Belcarra South Planning Program Public Open House No. 1 Thursday, July am 3 pm Belcarra Picnic Area Public Open House No. 2 Saturday, July am 4 pm Belcarra Picnic Area Public engagement for Belcarra South Planning Program Metro Vancouver is pleased to host two upcoming public engagement events at the Belcarra Picnic Area to: ar the r development Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 43

48 APPENDIX C BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM, BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK FEEDBACK FORM Your feedback will assist in the development of a plan for future work in the Belcarra South study area which meets regional and community needs. Please provide your input and comments by answering the following questions. PARK USAGE 1. What are doing in the regional park today? Please check all those that apply to you or your group. Walking / Hiking Kayaking / Canoeing Picnicking Attending Interpretive Event Fishing / Crabbing Attending Public Engagement Event Boating Other 2. How often do you come to this regional park? Please check the appropriate response. More than once a week About once a month About once a week About once every two months Two or three times a month Less than five visits a year ENVIRONMENT 3. Part of Metro Vancouver s mandate is to protect natural areas. Which of the following would you support in regards to the environment? Environmental restoration such as invasive species removal and planting native species Environmental interpretation and education through signage and interpretive displays Environmental protection such as restricting access to highly sensitive areas within the study area Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Additional Comments ACCESS AND AMENITIES 4. If improvements were to be made to the Belcarra South area which improvements would you support? Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Access Improving parking Adding to the trail network Improving cycling infrastructure Providing access to beach areas for picnicking, swimming, viewing, and nature appreciation Amenities Adding picnic shelters or picnic areas Adding outhouses Disagree Additional Comments 5. How did you get to the regional park today? Please circle one. Car Motorcycle/Scooter Bike Walked Transit Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 44

49 6. Were you able to get to the regional park easily and safely? Yes No Additional Comments 7. Does the busy nature of the facilities trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, washrooms, concession - in the study area impact your park experience? Please circle one. Yes No Additional Comments CABINS AND THE BOLE HOUSE 8. Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of determining the most appropriate uses for publicly owned structures, like the Bole House and the cabins, in Belcarra Regional Park. What do you think are the best public uses for these structures? Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Shelters for picnicking Education and interpretive functions Preserved historic buildings Locations for recreational equipment rental Food Services Caretaker location Weddings parties, seminars, and events Meeting space Artist studio or gallery Short term overnight stays Additional Comments PRIORITIES 9. Please prioritize from 1 least important, to 6 most important, how funding for future improvements for this area of the park should be spent? Please circle one number per item. Item Priority No. (1 6 ) Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas Improving vehicular access and parking Improving access for cyclists Providing new park facilities (trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, interpretive displays, outhouses) Restoring existing buildings and adapting them for new uses OPTIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION We would like to collect the following information so we know the range of area that people come from to access the park. What city do you call home: What is your postal code: If you want to be contacted in the future about the project, please provide contact information. Name: We thank you for your input! Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 45

50 Belcarra South Planning Program Welcome to the Open House Where Do You Live? Please place a dot in the community where you live. If you live in one of these communities, place a dot here. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 46

51 Belcarra South Planning Program Regional Park Context Belcarra Regional Park The mandate of Metro Vancouver Regional Parks: 1. Protect important natural areas 2. Provide opportunities for people to connect to nature MAP INSET Dock Metro Vancouver operates a regional parks system composed of 23 regional parks, three regional park reserves, two ecological FRQVHUYDQF\ DUHDV DQG ÀYH UHJLRQDO JUHHQZD\V The regional park borders on the Villages of Belcarra and Anmore and City of Port Moody Belcarra Regional Park is valued because of its water focused activities including: Walking and hiking on water-side trails Swimming Crabbing/Fishing Boating Environmental interpretation and stewardship Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 47 dw el l B Concession/ Washroom Building Study Area ay Road Parking Lot Tu m Did you know... Be Picnic Area ay Whueto nd Tum rive BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK

52 Belcarra South Planning Program History and Past Land Uses Belcarra Regional Park Did you know... The Belcarra Picnic Area was once a major First Nations Village. Artifacts indicate settlement dating back 3,000 years Twelve archaeological sites have been documented in or adjacent to the regional park The local First Nations called the area Tum-tumay-whueton which is said to mean good land and or biggest place for people on Indian Arm The mound north of the picnic area is a midden dating back to the First Nations use The term midden is derived from the Scandinavian word, midding, and refers to an accumulation of refuse about a dwelling place Hall who lived and logged on east shore of Indian Arm. He was later tried for the murder of his common law wife s mother. The lawyer who represented him in the trial was William Norman Bole who took title to the land in return for payment of legal services The name Belcarra is derived from two Celtic words bal meaning, the sun, and carra meaning fair or lovely land moved into the building known as the Bole House. In the 1930 s and 1940 s, the seven cabins were built as summer residences Coast Salish potlatch, Burrard Inlet Sources: Belcarra Park Archeological History Report, 1985; Belcarra Regional Park Plan, 1985; Forest & Fjord: The History of Belcarra, Ralph Drew, Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.43 Belcarra regional park midden site Belcarra regional park site artifacts LEGEND * midden * MAIN BEACH Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.30 Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.32 SOUTH BEACH Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.197 BOLE BEACH Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.149 N m Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.197 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 48

53 Belcarra South Planning Program Planning History Belcarra Regional Park Previous Planning and Design In 1985 the Belcarra Regional Park Plan was developed and in 1994 a pre-design report was prepared These documents provided a blueprint or guide for how a park should develop into time they were created and periodically and values Both were prepared with extensive public input and paid special attention to protection of watersheds as well as to the scale and location of regional park facilities Belcarra Regional Park Plan, 1985 This park plan from 1985 highlighted the importance of Belcarra as a regional park and underscored the importance of its policies for the regional park and outlined opportunities for recreational development. The Belcarra Regional Park Plan proposed the following amenities for this area of the regional park: Picnic tables Picnic shelters Park centre for washrooms, food services, information and interpretive display Park trails Underwater marine park Protected cormorant roosting trees Parking lots Beach and small picnic areas Access to pocket beaches Belcarra Regional Park Pre- Design of Belcarra Picnic Area Site Expansion and Admiralty Drive, 1994 This document undertook an extensive assessment of the park reviewing soils and hydrology, foreshore engineering, environmental and social sensitivities, archaeological importance, heritage potential and civil engineering requirements. The outcome was a concept plan that addressed outdoor recreational demand in response to site constraints and road engineering design criteria The pre-design document showed the following amenities at this area of the regional park: Boardwalk Interpretive features New wharfs Re-purposed Bole House Canoe rental and storage Park operations Work boat storage Picnic areas with picnic tables Protected cormorant roosting area Washrooms Parking Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 49

54 Belcarra South Planning Program South Picnic Study Area Belcarra Regional Park picnic area 1. Picnic Shelters main beach south beach bole beach 5. Cabins t PICNIC AREA MAIN 1 2 PARKING BEACH AREA 2. Picnic Tables 6. South Beach SOUTH BEACH 6 3. Trails 7. Rocky Headland 7 BOLE BEACH 8 N 4. Rock Outcrop extents of study area m 8. Bole House Why is Metro Vancouver doing this work now? The regional park is busier, particularly in the summer months The regional population has grown The 2011 Regional Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Demand Study demonstrated that the top two preferred landscapes are: 1. ocean or ocean beachfront or ocean coastline 2. wilderness or forested areas; Previous plans did not contemplate the heritage designation and retention of the cabins The majority of people come to the regional park for WALKING AND HIKING (92%), PICNICKING (77%), and SWIMMING AND BEACH ACTIVITIES (70%). 22% Since 2010 VISITATION to the regional park has INCREASED 22%. In 2015 the regional park received 668,000 VISITORS, up 7% from the previous year. 57% The MAJORITY of regional park users (57%) come from ANMORE, BELCARRA, COQUITLAM, PORT MOODY AND PORT COQUITLAM. The remainder come from throughout the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley. PARK VISITS continue to GROW MORE RAPIDLY (average growth rate 4%) than the general POPULATION (average growth rate 1.7%). Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 50

55 Belcarra South Planning Program Access and Amenities Belcarra Regional Park Midden Rd. Bedwell Bay Rd. P PICNIC AREA + WATERFRONT P Tum Tumay Whueton Dr. SOUTH BEACH LEGEND springboard trail rock outcrop beach picnic lawn hiking/cycling trails water access hiking trails maintenance road - no public access access road BOLE BEACH admiralty point trail concession and washrooms picnic shelters picnic tables cabin - no current public access existing amenity area N m potential amenity area Did you know... Visitation to this area of the regional park has increased 22% since 2010 Metro Vancouver forecasts an increase in population of 1 million people by Planning will address future increased use In 2015 there were 25 days when the parking was over capacity compared to 11 days in 2010 Capacity is especially an issue on summer weekends between Victoria Day and Labour Day There are 188 parking stalls near the picnic the bike lane Limitations High levels of use in this part of the regional park cause congestion at existing facilities Existing parking and picnic facilities are not meeting the current demands and access to the ocean is limited Transit service to the regional park is limited When the parking lot is over capacity, cars park in the cycling lane taking up infrastructure intended for alternative transportation Given its First Nations history, the possibility site. Archaeological assessments are required to be performed as part of detailed site planning. Opportunities Belcarra south beaches are the only ones along the Belcarra shore line with favourable, sunny aspects and modest, accessible slopes There is the potential to open additional water oriented trails There is the potential for interpretation of natural features and sensitive ecosystems The maintenance road could potentially provide public and emergency vehicle access in the future Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 51

56 Belcarra South Planning Program The Bole House and Cabins Belcarra Regional Park Did you know... The responsibility for heritage is mandated by the Province to local governments through the Local Government Act Cabin one, located in the Village of Belcarra, does not have a heritage designation The six cabins in Port Moody have been designated as protected heritage property under the City of Port Moody Heritage Designation Bylaw 2015 (No. 3006) The Port Moody Bylaw prevents exterior alterations, structural changes or moving of a building without an approved Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) Changes to the buildings may take place if a HAP is granted The Bole House is on the City of Port Moody Heritage Register. The register does not provide legal protection but enables the monitoring of proposed changes to heritage properties The cabins and their surrounding landscapes are located on public land and are publicly owned Limitations The mandate of Metro Vancouver s regional parks system is to protect important natural areas and to provide opportunities for people to connect to nature Where there is a heritage property within regional parks, a balance is sought between encouraging public uses and the enjoyment of the natural environment with heritage conservation Depending on future uses, buildings may require structural, architectural and servicing upgrades; Current capital budgets do not include funding for required upgrades Exclusive residential use is not considered a regional park service Opportunities Public uses of buildings in regional parks include: Buildings which serve as a base for an education or interpretive function (nature house, visitor centre, education centre, gathering place, stewardship centre) Preserved historic buildings unoccupied and for the public to view; may accentuate the park landscape, provide shelter or may provide interesting information to visitors Shelter for picnicking Concession for recreational equipment rentals; Concession for food services (snack bar, café, restaurant, teahouse) Caretaker use Event space for weddings, parties, events, seminars; rooms, program space for staff, park associations or park partners operating in one or more regional parks Artist studio or art gallery Short term overnight stays Bole House, circa 1980 Bole Beach, circa 1935 Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.193 Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.188 LEGEND cabin MAIN BEACH SOUTH BEACH belcarra port moody character of south beach character of cabin trails Cabin 1 2. Cabin 2 3. Cabin 3 4. Cabin 4 BOLE BEACH 8 N m 5. Cabin 5 6. Cabin 6 7. Cabin 7 8. Bole House Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 52

57 Belcarra South Planning Program Environment Belcarra Regional Park beach EELGRASS aquatic species habitat erosion control pond rock outcrop beach COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK FOREST in various stages of succession rocky headland HYDRO CORRIDOR immature growth, previously impacted forest N m beach Did you know... Belcarra Regional Park has several water related ecosystems including freshwater wetlands, eelgrass beds, riparian edges, Forest ecosystems include mature, mixed forest and mature, coniferous forest The forest is mostly in the Coastal Western Hemlock subzone consisting mainly of western hemlock, western red cedar, Vegetation south of the existing picnic area is in various stages of succession due to human disturbance Salmonberry, huckleberry, ferns and other The edge between the intertidal zone and the forest vegetation along the shore provides essential habitat for birds such as Eelgrass provides important habitat for aquatic species Limitations Disturbance of pond to be avoided Impacts to existing vegetation are to be minimized Steep rocky slopes limit development opportunities in some locations Opportunities Where possible, park amenities can be placed on previously disturbed sites Previously developed trail network could be re-used requiring no additional disturbance Previously impacted sites have slopes suitable for picnic areas and other amenities. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 53

58 APPENDI BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK Belcarra South Planning Program ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE OPEN HOUSE INFORMATION PANELS To participate, search Belcarra South planning at metrovancouver.org SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 54

59 ENVIRONMENT Verbatim Comments categorized by topic area Q3 Part of Metro Vancouver s mandate is to Protect Natural Areas. Which of the following would you support in regards to the environment? Environment Protection of the natural character of the park 1. Of course it is a 'given' that you should honour the mandate "to protect natural areas". Problems arise when one has to determine what is 'natural' vis-a-vis what is historic and therefore is natural by evolution. 2. This is a natural area, but it is to be USED by people. Although it is important to maintain the natural areas, I would support strongly the need to potentially create some areas with specific plantings of non-indigenous things like a tougher kind of grass that can survive being walked on, to ENHANCE the public's ability to use the area...not restrict it. We need to be able to INTEGRATE the human use, with the sometimes over-zealous desire for PROTECTION. 3. This particular park is best kept natural with the historic cottages and not encroached on with too much recreational activity, sports, traffic, motor boats, cycles, etc. Even though such parks are needed this park should be kept natural and as a historic site. 4. Belcarra park is a jewel, an easily accessible taste of nature within easy reach of Metropolitan Vancouver. Please do not change anything. What part of "Natural "don't you get? " If it ain't broke so don't fix it. 5. Belcarra is a valuable protected area within the Metropolitan area. The park contains key substantive environmental and cultural history assets that provide both a historical legacy of occupation and use by First Nations but also a snapshot of early use and activity by citizens of the lower mainland. 6. Preference is to maintain park as is - wonderfully managed, and no need for any changes for me to continue enjoying. 7. Certain aspects of environmental protection can become stupidly obsessive. Humans have always been part of nature, and interact with and shape nature, just like all other animals. The problem is not the fact of this, but the scale. 8. I do not support the expansion of the park to the Belcarra South area. The area remains as it was fifty years ago. The cottages and the walk along the gravel road are very beautiful and worth experiencing but not at the risk of opening up the beaches and major deforestation for picnicking. Planners should look for another solution. Environment Restoration Invasive Species and Planting 9. When destroying native plants in order to remove invasive species, I'm not certain it's useful. Containment is often the best approach. 10. Removing truly invasive species is a given, but otherwise let the park develop naturally. No need to remove non-invasive non-natives where the disruption to the existing ecology will do more harm than good. 11. I've been involved in invasive plant pulls in the park and encourage MV to continue this effort and not just be volunteers. 12. Any efforts to control invasive plants should be undertaking in conjunction with a regional strategy to end their sale in garden centres across the Lower Mainland. Page 1 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 55

60 Environment - Protecting birds and animals 13. I would not like to see further disturbance of the coastline south of the pier. This area is a cormorant and kingfisher roosting area and there is an eelgrass area. There should be no disturbance of this part of the beach and coast just to add more access for visitors. I was pleased to hear that the parking lot will not be enlarged. Just because the residential population is growing does not mean that our parks have to build out to handle that capacity. If the decisions to add amenities and access were made solely on rising population numbers, there would be damage to the existing environment. Please leave the park the way it is now and do not start tearing down the cottages in order to let more people access the shoreline. Those people who live there now have much less impact on the shoreline and park than allowing hundreds of people to access that area. 14. It seems a bit of a farce when looking at opening up the areas suggested. This area is frequented by several species that are not easily seen: cougars, lynx and newts (have seen all of these in the park and in our yard (just down the road) Also eagles roost in the trees along the shore, as well as blue heron. NONE of the trees should be removed, or at least very few. Environment - Education and Interpretation 15. An incredible opportunity to educate exists, as in my observations, I think some people just really do not know what is considered appropriate behavior towards the environment. Also, if there are educational displays etc., they should be limited to certain areas (at the start of trails etc.) so that the impression of being in a wilderness location is preserved. As a park visitor I do not want to be overly "managed". 16. I believe that signage and interpretive displays serve some purpose, but they are far from an essential part of my experience. I enjoy being in nature, and agree that removing invasive species (within reason) and maintaining the state of our native environment is important, whenever it is reasonable to do so. 17. Would like to see more real people as interpreters, not just signs and displays. Environment Access 18. The pocket beach at Belcarra South is a sensitive area that if opened up completely to the public will be degraded. Currently it is a clean and relatively quiet area of the park and that is the best part about it. 19. Access to sensitive areas should be managed (walkways, viewpoints) rather than restricted. 20. Access is good but people tend to abuse. 21. I would love to see more trails. Should be through the whole park, along Tum Tum and Wharton Road. 22. This is an "urban park" - should be lots of hiking etc. but can't restore wilderness or natural habitat. 23. Didn't provide comment field within Access area - problem with improved access - parking is that you encourage over utilization of the park - I think that the parking is adequate now - never had a problem as come early. More parking more people, more people, over use of natural environment. Cabins 24. What about the cottagers? There are homes here that people have been living in, some for as much as 50 years. There should be some mention of them in this questionnaire. A good reference would be Ward's Island off Toronto. That area combines a park and residences very nicely. I'd hate to see longtime residents lose their homes. 25. I do not use the park but do know the cottages you mention. 26. I believe that the heritage cottages in the Belcarra South Study area should be preserved and left in the care of the people who have been living in them for many years. 27. There are some residents in the area that have been exemplary. They should be allowed to stay and continue to maintain the cottages. 28. I am 100% in favour of keeping the historical cottages, and in particular Mayo Point Cottage which falls within Belcarra boundaries. I voted neutral on question 3.1 and 3.3 as I want to make my vote clear Page 2 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 56

61 29. I am 100% in favour of keeping the historical cottages, and in particular Mayo Point Cottage which falls within Belcarra boundaries. I voted neutral on question 3.1 and 3.3 as I want to make my vote clear that although I agree with restoration by removing invasive species and environmental protection by restricting access to highly sensitive areas, I do not agree with removing the cottages. These have historic value to our community. The resident tenants provide unpaid policing of the park. They keep the partying in check and have helped many people in distress or needing assistance. They know the park better than anyone and PMV should value their input. It would be a sad day if these historical cottages were demolished. As a resident I am in favour of Mayo Point Cottage receiving Heritage Status, and am at a loss as to why our current Mayor Ralph Drew does not see this as a priority and why he has not moved to do so. I am also 100% in favour of its current tenant (Jo Ledingham) continuing to reside there. This has been her home since 1964 (summer cottage) and 1978 (permanent). The park is already large enough to add more picnic tables or another shelter or 2. Miscellaneous comments 30. Open House should have included directions to the cabins trail encouraging people to view them. 31. The vision for Belcarra Provincial Park - It's my favourite place to work/play. I would help anytime in planning/organizing a welcome centre. I'll run and help/buy products (souvenirs) and sell them. Last but not least, start an art & craft class for all ages every day of the week. I'm an artist and I love to teach and share my talents and 20 years retail experience. 32. Better monitoring of "Crab Fishers" to control their garbage, bait waste, and defecation (human) along the trail areas, specifically the Admiralty Point Trail and the Bedwell Bluffs trail. There has been some improvement since the fences and signs went up on the Admiralty Point trail. More garbage containers would be welcome along the trails. 33. Protection from fire, overfishing, crabbing etc. 34. DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER any night time use of the picnic area. There are enough folks and vandals that come in at night and disturb our quiet enjoyment the park would need a constant security presence to avoid conflicts. Too much night time noise. We went to Sasamat Lake and there were many park workers and Parks special reps around the area. They didn't do much except stand or sit there and walk around! There were geese droppings all over the place and people were not happy about having to sit in it. The workers seem lazy and so do the Parks reps who were there to inform us of this survey they wanted to tell us about. It seems like you are doing a bad job in this park, one way or another. Why not remove the geese crap all over the park area? Another park patron was upset about it and told me the poop is not just unsanitary but unhealthy. You guys are a joke!...not taking care of obvious things like poop when you want to get more input from the public about other things,...a joke 35. stupid survey (again). Page 3 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 57

62 ACCESS and AMENITIES Verbatim Comments categorized by topic area Q4 If improvements were to be made to the Belcarra South area which improvements would you support? General Comments Access and Amenities 1. Current trails are great - numerous, and well maintained. Picnic shelters are very expensive to book unless you are a very large group. It would be nice to have some smaller covered sites for families to reserve at a more reasonable rate. Public grills provided are excellent and well used. Interpretive programs for children and adults would be beneficial. It would be nice to have a permanent interpretive program housed somewhere in the park for ongoing education (including criteria for crabbing & fishing). Nice restroom facilities are provided. Overall, I feel that the needs of the public are being well met! 2. Whether this should be done entirely depends on where they are sited. These are 'apple pie and motherhood questions as worded. 3. Park usage is very dependent on season/weather. 4. This park is a fragile natural area - one of the last in Metro Vancouver. It is home to a large variety of wildlife that should be protected, and some animals, such as bears and cougars, could pose a real danger to the public, especially if their territory is reduced. Access Improving parking 5. I agree that we need more parking, but I think it should be concentrated only close to the existing picnic area. I think your survey should include the fact that there are existing residents living in the cabins that have lived there for a very long time. 6. While I would like to see additional parking I'm torn as I don't want to see the loss of natural areas to parking lots. 7. New parking should be nearby areas already used for parking. The area west of the existing lot. If needed, additional parking areas could be east of the main park services garage/ building and/or in the water tank area. NOT IN BELCARRA SOUTH! A great area for a new picnic zone would be near the end of the Bedwell Bluffs trail, east or west of the trail. The tidal area at the head of Bedwell Bay is also virtually unused by visitors and could be developed for picnic area with outhouses and bear proof garbage containers. NOT IN BELCARRA SOUTH. 8. Support for additional parking contingent on improved amenities and infrastructure. 9. Leave trails and beach area as is. Upgrade parking by utilizing service area. Maintenance shed and storage can be moved to top of Tum-Tum. 10. I do not support additional parking areas. 11. Increased parking can overload the beaches Access Adding to the Trail Network 12. Improving and upgrading existing trails is more important than expanding the trail network. 13. Picnic areas mean more drivable access = less nature. I prefer trails. 14. Trail improvement to Jug Island beach. Access Improving cycling infrastructure 15. In my opinion, not every greenspace (park, greenway etc.) has to be amenable to ALL activities. Sometimes people choose to go to certain areas so that they can either pursue certain activities or by contrast get away from them. I do not think that this park needs to cater to cyclists. There are many cycling options in this area, many choices for mountain biking. I think this area should be one where people can go and hike or use the trails, walk the dogs etc. without having the stress of sharing them with mountain bikers. Page 4 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 58

63 Access Providing access to beach areas for picnicking, swimming, viewing and nature appreciation 16. Provide access to beach areas and art classes 17. The beach area in front of the cabins (preservation society) need to go and open up the area to the public. My tax dollars paid for this land and it is now a no public access area which I feel is wrong. Open it up to the public and expand the grassy area for picnickers. Add more parking. 18. Keep the houses and residents. They care for area and give security. Add open access to beach and perhaps add an area to picnic where one closed cabin is (old, run down, and boarded up one) 19. Evening access - the sunsets are great if you can access viewpoints. 20. Already plenty of access. 21. People are too disrespectful of nature and will inevitably just create more garbage in any areas that are opened up to the public. It's sad but true. The only way to preserve these natural areas is to keep access limited. 22. I strongly disagree that the Belcarra cabins should be demolished to improve " beach access" or to make way for a concession stand, picnic shelters or outhouses. Amenities Adding picnic shelters or picnic areas 23. There are lots of picnic shelters and areas. 24. Add picnic shelters, picnic areas and tables. 25. There could be an additional covered picnic area on the main lawn at Belcarra. Or even a few more picnic tables. 26. The grassy area of the picnic grounds needs to expand. 27. I would prefer a few benches over tables as I believe the park should be for walks, short stays and enjoyment of nature and heritage. 28. The long-established plan to add picnic areas where the cottages are, is ridiculous. 29. Ideas for making them even better. Wood sold onsite or switching to a gas fire pit would be nice - we always see people foraging for wood in the surrounding area which is upsetting. Potable/ drinking water has been an issue in the past - the tap by the fire pit is not always in service... The cooktops are AWESOME, but they get dirty and there are no signs about lining them with foil and no cleaning supplies for when they are dirty... We always do our best to scrub ours down when we are done, but sometimes only half of them look usable because of how dirty others have left them... Some sort of cleaning supplies provided right there or something would be nice. The cafe is only open in summer... The Boundary Bay Cafe is open year round and has a delicious menu and relatively affordable pricing - can this happen here too? Maybe the cafe could also rent chairs, small fire pits, and sun/rain shelters? And sell bait for crabbing and fishing? Rent fishing poles for kids? The dock is our other favourite, and the only issue is that it is crowded with crabbing and fishing. Would be nice if there were some other reasonably accessible spots to crab/ fish from, or if the dock could be tripled in size. Also, the park is FULL of geocaching which is AWESOME! Amenities Adding outhouses 30. If outhouses help the natural setting of the park, then yes. 31. No outhouses. Proper toilets and running water are needed. Signage 32. Better signage for outhouses coming up on the trail. 33. I would like to see signage similar to the ones that warn people coming from Port Moody that White Pine beach parking lot is full. A similar sign should be posted for Belcarra picnic area. 34. The story boards indicate only 25 days with parking challenges. Sign at 1rst + Ioco to say "full" will be better. Page 5 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 59

64 Retention of Natural Areas 35. The public coming to the park will always want more parking, more picnic areas, more, more, more. Your job is to provide for them, and to appease them but not at the expense of the larger public, the ones who expect you to protect the natural grandeur of the park, its historic elements and its social heritage. 36. Minor improvements like the provision of outhouses are sensible, but again, leave the park largely untouched. Municipalities have a tendency to want to fix what's not broken. Don't! 37. One of the advantages of this part at present is its lack of development...and the existing integration of the local residents with users who live close by, with others like myself who have to travel to get to this area...its attraction is its relative lack of things like picnic shelters...you could create some designated area so that people could come and use it for family events etc., without turning it into Stanley Park on a Saturday afternoon. 38. I would like to see the area remain as natural as possible. City parks and beaches are available and easily accessed and offer all of the above amenities. 39. What is there from what I have encountered is fine - again - increase beyond the areas ability to sustain by increasing amenities. 40. Belcarra needs to be protected from over development. The natural environment and heritage can only support a certain degree of use and activity before the 'Character' of the park is lost. 41. No improvement. Miscellaneous comments 42. In areas where crabbers regularly make trails to rocky outcrops, there is evidence they are using the forest and leaving toilet paper. A pit toilet might be useful in those situations. 43. The dock is configured for boat moorage. It was done before crabbing became one of the current most common reason for park visiting. Crabbers make the dock unsafe to come up against in a boat. Instead of spending money on doing anything with the cabins other than demolition, put the money into a new dock for the exclusive use of crabbers, and beach users for the launch and recovery of kayaks and paddleboards, in freshly reclaimed study area. At this point prohibit crabbing and fishing from the boat moorage area. 44. The park has plenty of illegal crabbing going on, as is. Many sneak past Belcarra South and crab endlessly and recklessly under size, ripping claws off Etc. etc. Residents in Belcarra south are very good at monitoring when they can. Park staff can't and don't. Also night time partying is a huge concern already in the park proper. Hired security doesn't do their job. Thankfully with residents in Belcarra South there, partners don't try and party there. Otherwise parties and fires will become commonplace there. 45. The questionnaire fails to mention the existence of a community that predates the establishment of the park. The sincere efforts of staff, consultants and public participants alike have been undermined by an apparently biased methodology. 46. Please accept the value of having residents in the private cabins on the park land. They provide a great service to the community by contacting first responders when there is trouble in the park and Belcarra Bay. They are a deterrent to vandals and partiers and are alert to unusual comings and goings (campers/homeless etc.) that a non-resident security service cannot recognize. 47. I live in Belcarra, the cabins are old and need to be removed. There is no way to fix and shore them up to an acceptable safety standard. The cost would be too high and buildings are not worth it. Q5 How did you get to the regional park today? - No additional comments were provided Page 6 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 60

65 Q6 Were you able to get to the regional park easily and safely? 1. This is one of the most accessible wilderness areas...no trouble getting there. 2. If Belcarra Park facilities are expanded to accommodate more visitors, public transit and road access through Port Moody and Anmore will have to be improved. 3. The Village needs to do something about the speeding on the roads and the lack of safe shoulders to walk/cycle on so that local residents would feel safer walking/cycling to the park. Would it be possible to have a bus go directly from Port Moody (or Ioco Town site) to Belcarra Park during the peak season (like to White Pine Beach) so that there would be less impact on the environment and less expansion of current parking facilities needed? Surely we can think of creative ways to reduce the number of cars going into the area! Additional Parking Comments 4. Although there is so much congestion as you approach the park, which is a safety concern. I would like to see the consideration of a "park & ride". People can park their vehicles at a location in town, and then a shuttle can take them to the park site. This could be implemented at regular timed intervals and maybe even link to Buntzen Lake and Sasamat. This would allow people to leave their vehicles behind thus creating less congestion on the roads and at the park sites parking areas. They could also take transit to the "Park & ride eliminating the need for their vehicle all together. 5. We always plan to go at times that get us parking (avoid arriving during peak hours). We stay at the park until the gates are set to close pretty much every time we go. Our kids love the playground on top of everything else I mentioned... However, in terms of routes that are good for kids to bike - are there any? The one route I used to take them partway involved me towing them up a series of switchbacks, and eventually popped us out onto the roadway which didn't feel safe, so that was always the end of our biking adventuring... I have always thought it a shame that I don't know a way to access the park by bike for kids and for adults riding street bikes (the skinny wheels can't handle the paths and the roads have small shoulders strewn with debris and blind corners and hills). 6. During early hours and weekdays, it's still OK, but not weekends and evenings. 7. Parking is always full so unless we plan to get there for 9am we are usually not able to visit during summer months. 8. An additional parking area in the study zone, to accommodate cyclist s, hiker s, crabbers and paddle sport visitors. The current area is well suited for picnics, loafing around and enjoying the ambience. 9. Sometimes it's hard to park, others not. Additional cycling and alternative modes of transportation comments 10. I sometimes ride my bike from Port Moody and find it to be an enjoyable and safe ride. Once I pass Sasamat Lake I access the Springboard trail and come to the Belcarra area that way. 11. Age plays a factor, unfortunately, many older people cannot access the park via walking or cycling. 12. I usually kayak over from Barnet Marine Park for a short stop. The serenity of the park is so important and something I appreciate. 13. I come by kayak from Cates Park. Page 7 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 61

66 Q7 Does the busy nature of the facilities; trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, washrooms, concession; in the study area impact your park experience? Comments from those that said yes the busy nature impacted their park experience. 1. The useable space is too small for the number of people who come here. 2. It is difficult at peak times to enjoy the serenity of the park and its surrounding nature when there are so many people crammed into the main areas. Most people have children who are exceedingly noisy and disruptive, to the point of obnoxiousness. Parents are not teaching their children to respect other park goers. I understand this is an issue of parenting skills, and not the park's responsibility - but perhaps "quiet picnic/beach zones" could be considered to help everyone have the park experience that they desire. 3. I stay away on weekends. 4. Yes, and no. Usually, if we go on a weekend through the year we find the park quite crowded with people being very territorial - not sharing space that well on the dock, fire pit, and the cooktops. However, depending what we are there for, and what part of the park we use, it may or may not matter. If we are walking and go to the small beaches off the main trail, it is usually a pretty quiet experience. However, often people have their dogs off leash - this is annoying for us as we have small children and a leashed dog. Would be nice to see some intervention around this. 5. The noise and barbecue smoke from many of the large groups currently renting the picnic shelters sometimes affects us negatively. We feel that opening up more picnic areas along the shore would result in considerably more garbage pollution in the park and on the beaches. We wonder how safety would be handled and also how vandalism could be policed. And we also wonder how many more parking lots would be built when the proposed lots fill up? Let's not pave paradise! 6. If you pack up for a day at the lake and can't get parking, that is a big problem. 7. Some days I have to turn around and that's in the morning. Too many crabbing and fishing. 8. I avoid the area on the weekends because it is crowded and noisy and there are too many people on the Admiralty Point and Jughead Island trails. This does not mean I want to see more trails built. The experience I want at the park is to hike and view nature and enjoy the peace and quiet. Viewing nature, peace and quiet are all amenities that the park provides and I would not like to see that change. We are living in crowded urban environments and I would not like to see changes to the park that will result in more crowding. I am interested in more interpretive information at the park regarding the First Nations, the wildlife and important plant life. 9. Parking is a big issue at the park. I typically only come on weekdays as it is not guaranteed that I will be able to get reasonable parking (for kids). 10. Retaining the relatively simple services may be more difficult since the population pressure is growing, but it s MORE IMPORTANT to retain the character of the place than to just increase the development in the Park 11. The existing parking lot and picnic area are barely adequate for the number of park users. 12. I am not a fan of overcrowding and too many people in an area... just not sure of how to control this. 13. Please do not increase the number of concessions or parking spaces. It will destroy the park. Comments from those that said no the busy nature impacted their park experience. 1. There are parks all over the world that limit the number of visitors at one time in order to keep the experience the best it can be. that being said, there are no more than 24 days in the year when the Picnic Area is full. Summer weekdays are quiet and there's almost no one in the Park throughout the winter. Rainy weekends are also quiet. Is it economically wise to plan for those few peak days at the destruction of forest to make more trails - trails that are never what anyone would call 'busy'? 2. No, it can be busy, but always there is somewhere to park or picnic. Even if it is somewhat crowded. The worse thing is inconsistency with the concession, NO consistent schedule for opening and often food has run out. Page 8 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 62

67 3. Like to see families and friends enjoying everything the park has to offer. Busy is only a problem if not anticipated and allowed for in design stage. 4. If I want to be with folks, I can. More often, I leave the lawn areas and head into the woods. 5. But so far it is in reasonable balance. If you disturb that balance, it will be to the detriment of the area. 6. I use Belcarra park regularly for walking, biking and relaxing. I see no need for more picnic tables, concession stands or washrooms. 7. I do not use the picnic area and just prefer the natural setting of the trails, including viewing beaches in their natural state. I feel we may be underestimating the value of undisturbed nature to our communities. 8. As we are retired and live in Port Coquitlam we tend to avoid coming to the park on weekends. During the week and most of the year we have no problems. 9. We avoid going to the park on holidays and weekends. We try to go when we know it will be quieter (cloudy days, early or later in the day, midweek, offseason). 10. Sometimes on busy weekends I simply stay away Miscellaneous 11. Strongly dislike the current materials used on the trails. I walk my dog daily on the trails and she and I find the hard pointed stones dangerous on our feet and in my case ankles. 12. On the Jug Island and Admiralty Point Trails, it would be nice to have a designated time of day, say 7am to Noon, weekdays only, when dog owners can run dogs off leash. 13. Weird question really. THE BOLE HOUSE AND CABINS Verbatim Comments categorized by topic area The Bole House 1. Bole house alone should be converted and maintained like Minnekhada Lodge. It could be used for events and small weddings etc. IT should DEFINITELY be fixed up and used. 2. I feel the cottages particularly the Bole house and original point cabin should stay as is and tenanted especially the small point one. The beach below is secluded and I feel there could be severe damage to the park including fire if there are not tenants there. The history of those two is important to be preserved. 3. Occupation of the cabins is a sensitive issue. While one can understand how a person would want to continue to live in such a beautiful space is it really the mandate of Metro Parks to provide habitation? Many people are intimidated by the cabins and don't access the south beach area or even know that it exists. It is too bad that the City of Port Moody has given them all heritage designation rather than just the Bole house. The Bole house could be used as an interpretative centre for the area, nature studies meeting place. I would hate to see money spent on the cabins at the expense of other heritage buildings in other Metro Parks. 4. Bole house could be caretaker/ interpretive centre and for small group use. Sort of like Minnekhada. 5. The Bole house needs a caretaker now. It shouldn't be left empty. The grounds should be restored and occasional activities could take place here until such time as sufficient water allows for broader use. Broader use could include an interpretive centre, a tea garden, a museum dedicated to the use of the area starting with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. 6. Bole House and the cottages have historical significance to the rest of Belcarra and are a protected bit of Vancouver heritage that has been all but obliterated from the Village of Belcarra proper. Page 9 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 63

68 Comments focused on Heritage Preservation 7. I do not support the expansion of the park to the Belcarra South area. Please retain and preserve the many wonderful features of this entire heritage property. This planning process risks destroying something very, very unique! 8. It s important to remember that there are people living in these cabins and they are as much a part of the historic preservation as the cabins themselves. To kick them out and destroy that link to history would be a big mistake. 9. Please preserve the cabins and community! 10. I for one like that the old cottages are maintained and lived in by people. I think I am not alone. People seem delighted and curious about them and their rustic charm and mysterious tenants. The people who still live there have maintained them as heritage at their own cost and should be encouraged to do so. They are too far off the beaten path to be good for other recreational amenities which should all be centralized in a park that is already wonderfully without expanding. These buildings are part of Port Moody's living heritage and are most valuable to metro Vancouver as just that. Any tampering with the status quo would undermine their most important assets. 11. I think the heritage cabins and their occupants should be protected and retained. 12. The existing residences in the area should be retained as exactly that "RESIDENCES". We have lost so many of the older leased cabins, but the examples are already here... the cabins at Cypress continue to be occupied, and create a balance in that location... I remember when Grouse Mountain and Seymour had similar cabins, all of which were lost because of the lack of understanding about how important retaining that part of the character of the place really is. Have a look at how simple it was in Oregon, Washington State and in the UK to accept that this kind of arrangement is a CRITICAL PART of the environment...the built environment...and no, I do not know anyone who has a place there now, but it s not in the PUBLIC INTEREST to consider redeveloping all these places ONLY into the kind of service areas you list above. 13. The Belcarra cottages are an important historical entity that must be preserved and not made into another picnic area which should be in other areas or other parks. This remaining remnant of community living in the natural setting along the ocean unique and important offering inspiration to generations to come. Especially with all the fast moving large developments everywhere this aging community could serve as a model for preservation. 14. These are historic and interesting buildings that should be preserved and could become tourist attractions. The residents are great caretakers as well as watchful, responsible volunteer park watchpersons. Can they not be part of the plan moving forward? I do not support their eviction. 15. Heritage preservation is not part of your mandate. Seeing the number of heritage buildings in your parks, it should be! The cottages are tenanted - this should be considered as a low cost option for preservation; a living history. 16. All cottages and Bole house need to be preserved, possibly repurpose but the history and landscape and community of the area as one of the remaining summer cottage areas of Metro Vancouver is important! Comments related to the caretaker and maintenance role of the tenants 17. Leave the tenants in the cabins to continue their roles as environmental ambassadors, protectors and educators of the beach wildlife. 18. I would strongly suggest that the current tenants of the structures be allowed to stay and maintain the structures as they have been doing quite successfully and responsibly for many years. The public should also have some means of access to the publicly owned areas, while allowing the tenants to stay in place. I see this as a win-win for all sides. 19. I feel the cabins and the Bole house should be left as they are. The people that occupy these dwellings are stewards and look after their area and keep an eye on the park. 20. These cabins are inhabited already and should remain so. Once the folks are gone the buildings will be open to vandals. The folks living there are keeping the area safe for all and there is no good Page 10 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 64

69 reason to expel them. Why does this survey not mention that the Cabins have been tenanted and maintained by the tenants for decades? The tenants are the biggest asset the park and Metro Vancouver has in keeping these heritage building safe, the park 'caretaker' and having free stewards and advocates for the area, the natural environment and showing by example how we can live with a small and green footprint. What are you asking about change of use and other options for the cottages when the bylaws of Port Moody specifically forbid the "altering, relocating or demolishing" of the cottages in their jurisdiction - especially in this format that does not give the full information to the public, that the home have been tenanted for decades and the tenants do ongoing repairs and upkeep at their own expense? Metro Vancouver has left uninhabited historic building in parks (at Colony Farm Park for example) that are now in terrible disrepair and will cost us (we the tax payers pay for Metro Vancouver to exist) thousands to repair (and more each year they are left unattended to). At Belcarra, why risk losing the cottages - an important historic site, while there are people willing to live there and undertake the repairs and upkeep at their own expense? Metro Vancouver - leave the tenants alone, you have more important work to do! 21. The residents of the cabins have been acting as stewards for the park, helping to prevent damage and, most importantly, fires. If they are evicted, who will oversee this large area? How will the empty cabins be heated in winter and maintained year-round to prevent deterioration - and at what cost? We are extremely worried about the possibility of a forest fire in the park, which we fear would be a much greater risk if overnight stays were permitted. 22. What about the people that currently live there? Shouldn't we let them continue to live there until they move out or pass away and then decide what to do with the cabins? Why should we evict them so that we can preserve the structures? Aren't they already doing a good job of preserving them for us? 23. I can't say it strongly enough. Leave the situation as it is. It works well. You have on-site caretakers who respect this special environment - and you don't even have to pay them! In fact, they pay you. What's not to like about that? And why is that not one of the options above? All the "Priorities" below assume a need to do something, which is why I'm not replying to that section. So-called "improvements" will prove to be the reverse, and further damage an already fragile ecosystem. 24. I live in Fort Langley, and hope to visit Belcarra more often. Metro Parks should retain caretakers in the cabins for obvious reasons. As you know, park residents living beside the Fort-to-Fort Trail on this side of the Fraser River are extra eyes, reminding visitors to be responsible and show respect. This adds tremendous value. (I'm also a member of the Langley Heritage Society which has caretaker tenants who care deeply about these structures, honouring their original use.) Cheers 25. I believe that the heritage cabins in Belcarra park should be preserved as they are and left in the care of the people who have rented them for many years. These renters have cared for and maintained the cabins for decades. They have installed electricity, fixed plumbing, and replaced rooves. They have also acted as beach wardens and protected the natural environment. I do not think that the cabins need to be re-purposed or that they should be opened to the public. 26. The leases have maintained the cabins for many years. They should continue to do so. Please do not turn the Park into another Stanley Park with more hot dog stands or rentals. If you keep adding more facilities more people will come and destroy the very special ambiance. Keep it low key and natural so visitors can relax and tune in to nature and out of their frenetic lifestyle. A walk in the woods or beach, sitting on the rocks watching the sunset. That beats any other activity. 27. The residents of the cabins provide after park hours security to the picnic area just by their presence. Commercial uses of these buildings is not in keeping with the natural wild nature of the park. 28. Let the people who have been living there for decades stay living there and be the environmental stewards of the park. 29. I would actually like to see the tenants carry on at the cabins because they protect the land, they have a unique community of caring and semi-affordable housing which they look after themselves at their own cost -as long as they know it is worth investing in. If an eviction is constantly threatening them, how can they invest in their homes? It seems like an unfair treatment of tenants from both a legal and Page 11 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 65

70 ethical perspective. Housing exists in many parks everywhere. Metro Van s claims against the tenants always seem inconsistent and superficial. The fact that the full picture of the story is not included in Metro Van s presentation at the park nor in this survey is very disturbing and further makes one question the legitimacy of the whole consultation process. 30. Why don't you mention that the cabins are currently lived in and maintained by a community dating back to the sixties? 31. The best use for the cabins is to have them occupied by people who love and care for them and the surrounding environment. Cabins in the woods need full-time caretakers or they fare poorly. The problem with the above suggested uses is that these occur only seasonally. What is particularly special about the cabins is that people still live in such small rustic homes and pull together as a community. It is an interesting anomaly in modern times on the edge of a metropolis. Why not grandfather the existing tenants and restore and repurpose cabins as residents leave? 32. I would like to see history preserved, the cabins preserved and the tenants grandfathered. 33. Jo Ledingham should be able to stay until her death. She has done so much for this park and is important after hours. 34. Current residents in cottages are providing stewardship that exceeds above suggestions. 35. To keep the structures safe it is important to have human presence all the time so vandalism doesn't happen Tenancy focused comments 36. There are existing long term tenants in these spaces. Metro Vancouver's densification by-laws ensure massive money laundering/foreign 'investment' and that has rendered the city exceedingly unlivable for full-time residents. The frenzied condo-build-greed cycle puts rental vacancy rates at close to zero and affordable rental spaces are in a negative spiral altogether. If the city wants to actively evict these tenants in addition to all the ways in which its by-laws are doing so on a daily basis across the city with endless single-dwelling unit demolitions then I can say I won't be surprised, but I will indicate that it is exceedingly short-sighted and counterproductive in the long run. 37. I feel the current residents of the cabins should be allowed to reside in the cabins for their lifetime. Number 9 below is unclear as to whether you are referring to the park or the cabin area and south beaches. 38. Please allow the very long-term tenants, who care for these cottages, to remain there in peace (as long as they cause no harm to park property). 39. Let the present long-term tenants stay in the cottages. 40. Leave the existing residents in place. 41. Leave the people whose homes they are in peace! 42. If the purpose of this survey is only to garner support for the eviction of the residents of the cabins, then I disagree with the premise. I do not know any of the people who live in those cabins but I understand the cabins are their homes. I would not like to see these families evicted from their homes. I have never been to the areas in front of the cabins and that is not because I don't want to disturb the people; it's because I don't want to disturb the environmental and wildlife that live along the shoreline. 43. Strongly believe existing leaseholders should be able to continue residing in all cabins. 44. Save the Belcarra Cottages! Tenants should be allowed to stay in the cottages with public access granted to the land. 45. Let the people living there continue to live there! 46. People who have lived there for years should be allowed to stay there!!! 47. Those occupying cabins should be permitted to continue to do so until they no longer wish to. 48. I feel the people who live there should be allowed to live there. 49. The present tenants take care of their cabins, both structurally, environmentally and historically and should be allowed to continue their stay. 50. Don't some folks live in these now? Page 12 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 66

71 51. Note to the priorities selections below: Can't there be an option to keep the status quo, must we develop everything! We don't want a "Stanley Park"! 52. These buildings have long term tenants in place. I do not think that it is in the interest of the GVRD in any way shape or form to create more people looking for new/alternate housing. Leave the tenants in place until they wish to leave of their own accord and then MAYBE find an alternate use for these buildings. I cannot support driving people out of long term homes to then use these homes for other uses. 53. You failed to mention that there are existing cabins with long term tenants - some with pioneer roots to the area. These cabins and their tenants add to the park and should be encouraged to remain. 54. Long term residential housing as currently used. 55. Let present renters be grandfathered Cultural Heritage Comments 56. I am not sure if this is a genuine attempt to get feedback or if it is an attempt to justify actions that are already planned. Jo Ledingham is important to the cultural community of the Lower Mainland. She should be allowed to stay. Her presence there adds to the park in a way that is both spiritual and ecological. Having people live there is a form of "protection" that you probably cannot understand. The culture we live in is famous for ignoring assets that contribute to our culture. Applying a business model to the concept of "park" is both hilarious and short sighted. Ultimately trying to put a monetary value to "parks" devalues them because on that scale there will never be enough money spent to equate with their true value. That value is based on a spiritual relationship between humans and nature. 57. Metro Vancouver's parks people say they are in the environmental protection and recreation business. Apparently they don't know that they are in the history business. Residences in parks are an important feature of Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, Toronto Island, Hollyburn Ridge, and a huge number of National Trust assets in Britain. The Belcarra cottages are a rare remnant of a way Vancouverites lived for much of the 20th century. Residents impose little or no costs on Metro, while serving as caretakers and sometimes even interpreters in an isolated park, which is a valuable service to Metro. One of them may have saved a life. There is a place for their continuing role, along with an opportunity to open the cabins up to short-term stays, artist s residencies, and other uses. We do not need more picnic areas that look like all the other picnic areas. We need to protect things that are special and unique and different. Difference creates interest, which is why the cabins on Canoe Lake and the homes on Toronto Island are now so valued, where once governments wanted to get rid of them all. The intent to rid Belcarra of these cabins has been deeply entrenched and has resulted in some unfortunate behavior. I'm afraid I feel the bias to rid Belcarra of the cabins is even evident in this survey. In the questions above, why can I strongly agree but not strongly disagree? It's time for a reset that includes more deference to and respect for local government opinion and the role and history of the cabins and their residents. Once the cabins are gone, they are gone for good. Don't load the process in favour of getting rid of cultural history. Acknowledge that cultural history matters in parks, and when Metro can get that history and caretaking services for next to nothing, by allowing people to live in and maintain at least some of these assets, recognize what a good deal that is for all the citizens of Metro. Clearly marked trails and points of access to the beach can coexist with these cottages. Grandfather existing residents and free some but not all cottages up for other uses as they become available. 58. These have been people's HOMES for years - I understand for some more than 4-5 decades!! The homes have been plumbed, wired, roofed and maintained by the residents. Families have been raised. Ecological standards are maintained because it's not a weekend getaway by hundreds. The residents and the cabins/houses they reside in are the history of the area. There is no mention of this is the survey. Page 13 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 67

72 59. These cottages are the last summer cottages in the area and need to be preserved, occupied by the current residents as witnesses of family histories heritage in this fabulous set-up with the non-occupied cottages used for cultural purposes. Opening up access to the cabins and cabin area 60. People should not be allowed to live in those cabins. They should be torn down as they have no value. They are a hazard and an obstacle to public enjoyment of that part of the park. 61. I think it's important to optimize on the structures themselves. It's a perfect opportunity to bring in business and more tourism to the area. It should be available to the public as we do pay taxes for our parks and the structures in them. Because of the beautiful location and lack of ocean front public areas in the tri cities I really think it should be made available to the public somehow (once again we pay for our parks). 62. The cabins and structures in the area are architecturally insignificant, and of dubious build quality. Could best be compared to an Okanagan fruit pickers cabin. Clear the site and maybe put a "yurt" over the exact spot with a commemorative plaque to appease the historians. 63. The activities in this area should be kept to a minimum in my opinion, without too much interference from anyone. Every park visitor should have access to this area and there should be no one living in this area - caretaker or not. Metro Vancouver should take control and ensure that access and enjoyment is equal and available for all residents or visitors of the region. The conflicts between people and their supporters who have/are living there, the City of Port Moody and Metro has become tiresome. Please get back to the business of making this an area for all to enjoy, without special interest s groups seemingly having an upper hand in the outcome of the land use for this area. 64. I think the cabins in the park should be torn down and removed in order that the general public get access to this area. The Bole House could be preserved. The cabins are not heritage buildings. The current residents are getting waterfront homes for a fraction of what it costs other people to do so. They should be evicted so that the public can utilize this area. 65. The beach directly in front of the park is underused. Clean it up and use it as beach front. 66. The park should continue to be closed at night...no overnight stays. the cabins are a fire hazard and not architecturally significant so that they are not worthy to be declared heritage. the caretaker should be in the picnic area and have the ability, without leaving his residence to light the area and maybe a loud speaker to declare the park closed and the police on the way. the picnic area already has a food concession building and so no more is needed. renting out buildings for night time use puts the park in conflict with the residential neighbouring homes. maybe block 48 could be sold to a developer as it is not in use by the park users and that money could pay for the necessary expansion of parking and lawn space in the old picnic grounds. 67. The people who live in the cottages - to get out! Restore the cottages find new uses. Look to the private sector and real estate developers (DCCs) to pay for restoration. Artists in residency 68. Even with the range of options provided, these are what are known as 'leading questions'. First of all, these are not 'cabins', they are cottages. The use of the word cabin diminishes them considerably in the mind of the reader - and most of the readers have never seen them anyway. None of these proposed uses for the 'cabins' would actually work - and to get any of those uses into operation would require a major butchering of the cottages and of the natural setting around them. The closest future use for the cottages that I would endorse is the one for 'artist studios'. The cottages could continue as they are now as the home of a single artist or an artist couple. (This is not a suitable environment for children or teenagers). Artists of any discipline or pursuit (writer, painter, sculptor, dancer, actor, etc.) would be chosen by lottery - held annually - province wide. A lease would be for 3 to 5 years. The artist would have to honour a commitment to look after their cottage and to be part of the cottage community (following the example of the current residents - who have, for example, Page 14 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 68

73 repaired and maintained their cottages at their own expense and have built their own water supply system at their own expense and maintain it accordingly). The leases would be timed to expire one or two per year so that there is always a core of seasoned community members. Lastly, the cottages would NOT be gutted and modified in ways that would actually destroy their physical heritage qualities. Finally, looking down to the PRIORITIES section, in the final slot you say "Restoring existing buildings and adapting them for new uses" and that is basically a conflict of interests. You cannot 'restore' on the one hand and 'adapt' to any meaningful degree on the other hand. You can however 'restore for continued use'. 69. As a resident in Belcarra South I favour a creative, collaborative approach to the cottages in Belcarra South: a mix of year round residents who have history here and who know the area intimately and who have been providing stewardship for decades, with the gradual phasing in of an artist in residence, a gallery/museum in the Bole house. A creative solution is out there; we just have to work to find it. It's not an all or nothing situation. It works elsewhere: Hollyburn Ridge, Minnekada Park, Finn Slough, Toronto Island. It's common all over Europe. Why not here? This could be a jewel in the Metro Van crown and not just another park with picnic tables and trails. 70. Why not grandfather the existing tenants and restore and repurpose cabins as residents leave? Port Moody is the City of the Arts and the Belcarra cabins would serve well as locations for artists in residence. There is currently a thriving community of artists enjoying this historic site, producing dozens of paintings, sketches, films and photographs and exhibiting work in and around the Tri-city area and beyond. 71. I request the cabins to be left. Keep Mayo Point Lodge cabin "1" especially. No future development should be started until after her death. Cabins are a nice charming attraction Metro Parks can integrate into their park play. Bole House to use as larger seminar/events space. A cabin would make a great artist and aboriginal centre Other uses 72. Short term overnight stays could be interesting... but only if affordable and limited in some way to local residents or friends and family of local residents. There is no point in having them open to overnight stays if they are rented months ahead of time for tourists from other countries and nobody in the local area is able to make use. 73. We would love if there was camping and cabin-ing at Belcarra. We have to go out to Allouette to have good camping as it stands, but there is a lot of land at Belcara and maybe there is a way to have cabins and campsites available? I only suggest the campsites because I am fairly certain that if the cabins go up for short-term rentals, they will fill up almost immediately, so it might be nice to create more opportunities. 74. Overnight stays - danger of parties. 75. I think these buildings could be best used for a variety of uses, but they should ALL be preserved. My ideal use would be a combination of: interpretive/education centre, permanent caretaker accommodation, artist/studio gallery, retreat (short term), meeting area. My greatest concern is that they will fall into disrepair once they are unoccupied and will then be demolished. What a travesty that would be! Also, I have great concerns that if no one is living there on a daily basis to monitor potential fires and littering from people coming in (especially by boat), the cottages and their surrounding area will be used irresponsibly, and could result in a major fire or loss of life by drowning. 76. Education and buildings for some re: heritage of area 77. I know that the cottages are occupied with people who have been there for a very long time and who have been caring for them. This very important fact is not mentioned in this survey. I think that maybe 1 or 2 non-occupied cottages could be used for special educational programming in collaboration with the current cottages' residents once or twice a month and that 1 of the non-occupied cottages could be fit out for an artist in residence over the year. Page 15 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 69

74 78. There are people currently residing in said cabins that should be considered and accommodated within the park's changes. There are opportunities for education that include history involving First Nations culture, as well as the historical contributions of the Belcarra South community -both of which predate the creation of Belcarra Regional Park. 79. The value of a park is not only its environmental and natural assets but also its place in a historical perspective. From pre-contact through to early days of development a park provides a protected and physical record for future generations to appreciate, learn from and understand. 80. Weddings/parties could be great if suitable. 81. I think a few should be kept and used for most reasonable functions. Miscellaneous 82. Food services could have better food choices. 83. Don't need houses for picnics. 84. Crabbing is the biggest draw to the park, extend the dock and keep an officer there to monitor fishermen. There are approximately 10 to 12 days out of 365 where the park is full. Displacing people from their homes should be off the table. 85. While it may not be convenient to acknowledge, there is still a community in Belcarra South. Metro Vancouver has already divorced itself from a process that would have allowed for the much needed scrutiny of an objective third party, namely the B.C Supreme Court. For Metro Vancouver to now undertake public engagement, without mention of the community or the very real and as yet unresolved tenancy dispute is dishonest, prejudicial and ultimately an abuse of process. 86. Caretaker location is too far away. Trouble is always on the grass area and the dock. 87. Park hours are too limited in summer months. Access to the shoreline and park in the evenings please, with restaurant or coffee shop. PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE Verbatim Comments categorized by topic area The Bole House and Cabins 1. Current use of existing buildings is fine with me. Why not present this as an option? 2. Restoration of existing buildings can take place after current tenant s leave 3. Let them stay. No grandfather clause. THEN caretaker in one, and artist residency. 4. To use Bole house, only convert a cabin if not possible to keep it and resident dies. Picnic Facilities 5. If providing new park facilities in the form of picnic shelters, they should be in smaller pockets. 6. If providing new park facilities, then definitely picnic tables. And put them throughout the park, not just in Belcarra South! Parking and circulation 7. Not vehicular access and parking. 8. Vehicle access for drop off and pick up of kayaks, picnic stuff etc. through the beach area. Boat access better (not motorized launch). 9. No extra parking. Parking only full 25 days/365. Not enough for expansion. More signage. 10. The current maintenance shed area could be converted to parking while cottagers maintain beach area. Viewing of the Cabins 11. There should have been an opportunity to view the cottage area. The signage says no access. It should also have been clear that they are currently tenanted. Page 16 of 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 70

75 Attachment 6 Regional Park Survey A SURVEY OF METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS Presented to Metro Vancouver November 2016 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 71

76 Table of Contents Introduction 03 Sampling 04 Observations 05 Executive Summary 06 Research Findings 11 Regional Park Visitation 12 Regional Park Activities 23 Facilities and Buildings 26 Belcarra Regional Park 35 Belcarra South 43 Crippen Regional Park 49 Davies Orchard Area 56 Demographics 60 2 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 72

77 Introduction Overview Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Metro Vancouver's regional parks system includes 23 regional parks, three regional park reserves, two ecological conservancy areas, and five regional greenways. The system exists, first and foremost, to protect the region's important natural areas and ecosystems. With a goal of evaluating public perception regarding regional park priorities, Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research. Specifically, the research answers the following business questions: Which regional parks have residents visited? What do residents do at regional parks? How do residents prioritize regional park services? What do residents feel are the best uses for publiclyowned buildings located on regional park lands? How do residents prioritize services in Belcarra Regional Park and Crippen Regional Park? Methodology Surveys 1,422 adult residents. Field dates: November 16 to 27, Population: The table on the following slide displays the areas sampled for this study. Methodology: Online. Weighting: The final data were weighted to match age and gender characteristics and regional distribution of Metro Vancouver residents. Languages: Surveys were conducted in English. Margin of error: The total sample is representative of 750 Metro Vancouver residents. A probability sample of 750 carries a margin of error +/-3.6 percentage points 95% of the time. 3 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 73

78 Sampling The table below displays the areas sampled for this study. Areas Sampled Sample size Margin of error* Central: Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Electoral Area A 315 +/- 5.5 North West: West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, Lions Bay, Bowen Island North East: Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows 187 +/ /- 5.5 South West: Delta (includes Ladner and Tsawwassen), Richmond, Tsawwassen First Nation 305 +/- 5.7 South East: Township of Langley, City of Langley, Surrey, White Rock 301 +/- 5.7 Total 1,422 Equates to 750 +/- 3.6 *Strictly speaking margin of error can only be applied to unweighted probability samples. The margin of error figures listed in this table are what would apply to probability samples of the same size. A note on weighting: At the request of the client, several regions were oversampled to allow reasonable separate analysis of these regions. After weighting of oversampled areas the total sample is representative of a random sample of 750 Metro Vancouver residents. 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 74

79 Observations Residents priorities for regional parks reflect the activities they engage in. Hiking or walking along trails and picnicking are the most common activities residents engage in during their visits to regional parks. As a result, residents priorities align with improving those experiences. This also extends to publicly-owned buildings on park lands, as the largest proportion of residents feels that converting these buildings to shelters for picnicking is the best way to use them. Renovating existing buildings in Belcarra South is not a top priority for residents. As a priority, this ranks below environmental restoration, new park facilities, and improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas. A small majority of residents feel some of these buildings should be removed if Metro Vancouver cannot find suitable regional park uses for them. The term heritage produces a strong response. Renovating and maintain buildings is relatively low priority for residents when measured against specific services such as trails and picnic shelters. Despite this, the importance of heritage buildings outweighs park services for a plurality of residents. Residents ambivalence regarding the heritage buildings may be offset by providing contextual information. There is a lot of room to improve Crippen s name recognition. More residents have visited Crippen Regional Park than know it by name. One-in-ten residents have heard of Crippen. However, when provided a description and a map showing its location, half again as many recall visiting the park. In contrast, awareness of Belcarra is noticeably higher than visitation. 5 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 75

80 Executive Summary Regional park visitation Nearly all (96%) Metro Vancouver residents ( residents ) have visited one or more regional parks. A very strong majority (85%) have visited a regional park at least once in the past year, including forty-four percent (44%) who visited at least monthly. Visitation is universally higher in regions closest to each park. Parks in North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and Bowen Island Nine-in-ten (89%) residents have visited one or more regional parks in the North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, or Bowen Island area. Residents are most likely to have visited Burnaby Lake (75%), followed by Capilano River (64%), Lynn Headwaters (47%), and Pacific Spirit (42%). Fewer have visited Seymour River Greenway (22%), Crippen (15%), and Brunette- Fraser Greenway (14%). Parks in the north east Sixty-four percent (64%) of residents have visited one or more regional parks in the north east area of Metro Vancouver, which includes Belcarra, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge. Residents are most likely to have visited Belcarra (52%), followed at some distance by Colony Farm (23%), Pitt River Greenway (22%), Kanaka Creek (17%), and Minnekhada (16%). Parks in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey Three-quarters (74%) of residents have visited one or more regional parks in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey. One-half (50%) of residents have visited Boundary Bay and one-third (34% each) Iona Beach or Deas Island. Three-in-ten (30%) have visited Tynehead, followed by Barnston Island (20%), Delta South Surrey Greenway (12%), and Surrey Bend (10%). Parks in Langley and Abbotsford A large minority (44%) of residents have visited one or more regional parks in Langley and Abbotsford. Residents are most likely to have visited Campbell Valley (26%), followed by Aldergrove (22%), and Derby Reach (18%). A very small minority have visited Glen Valley (9%), Matsqui Trail (8%), or Brae Island (4%). Regional park activities What do we do at regional parks? The largest proportion (83%) of residents who have visited one or more regional parks hike or walk. Just over one-half (55%) participate in nature viewing. The other most common activities include picnicking (38%), walking dogs (25%), attending an event (22%), and visiting a nature centre (15%). Fewer engage in waterfront activities, including swimming (14%), kayaking or canoeing (10%), fishing or crabbing (6%), and boating (5%). 6 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 76

81 Executive Summary cont d Facilities and buildings What is important to us at regional parks? Facility importance typically reflects activity participation. Over eight-in-ten (83%) residents feel trails for walking or hiking are among the top two most important facilities at regional parks, followed at some distance by picnic tables and shelters (43%). A smaller minority selected swimming and beach access (17%), cycling paths (15%), nature centres (13%), or docks and piers (9%). Regionally, these results are relatively consistent. What are the best uses for publicly-owned buildings on park land? The largest proportion (38%) of residents feel that renovating publicly-owned buildings on park lands into shelters for picnicking is one of the best uses for those buildings. Other choices include preserving them as historical buildings (28%), renovating them into education or nature houses (28%) or food services (24%). Just under two-in-ten (18%) feel they should be used for weddings, meetings, and events. The fewest residents feel they should be used for short-term overnight stays (8%) or artist studios or galleries (9%). One-in-ten (10%) residents do not have a preference for how these buildings are used. Older residents are more likely to feel that the best use for publiclyowned buildings is to preserve them as historical buildings: 65 or older (34%) 55 to 64 (31%) 35 to 54 (29%) 18 to 34 (22%) Do we support removing buildings? One-half (49%) of residents support (strongly + somewhat) removing buildings to redirect the cost savings to other regional park services when no regional park use exists. Three-in-ten (30%) oppose (strongly + somewhat) and two-in-ten (20%) do not have an opinion. Residents with an annual household income over $100,000 are more likely to support (strongly + somewhat) than those with lower household income (60% versus 48%). Support for removing buildings increases with regional park visitation frequency: Visit not at all in the past year or never (39%) Visit five times per year or less often (47%) Visit every two months or more often (54% support) 7 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 77

82 Executive Summary cont d Are heritage buildings a more important priority than other park services? Just under one-half (46%) of residents feel that maintaining and improving heritage buildings on regional park lands is more important (much + somewhat) than other park services, including thirteen percent (13%) who feel it is much more important. Just under two-in-ten (18%) feel they are less important (much + somewhat). Three-in-ten (31%) feel they are neither more nor less important and six percent (6%) do not have an opinion. Belcarra Regional Park Have we heard of Belcarra Regional Park? Seven-in-ten (71%) residents have heard of Belcarra Regional Park. Awareness is highest in the north east region and lowest in the south east: North east (90% aware) Central (73%) North west (71%) South west (64%) South east (61%) How often do we visit Belcarra Regional Park? One-half (52%) of residents have visited Belcarra Regional Park. One-quarter (25%) visited the park in the past year, including five percent (5%) who visited monthly or more often. Visitation is highest among residents from the north east region: North east (51% visited in past year) Central (29%) South east (16%) North west (15%) South west (13%) How do we travel to Belcarra Regional Park? The vast majority (95%) of residents who have visited Belcarra Regional Park travel to the park by driving (vehicle + motorcycle). A small minority (4%) take public transit. What do we do at Belcarra Regional Park? The largest proportion (73%) of residents who have visited Belcarra Regional Park engaged in hiking or walking. The other most common activities are nature viewing and picnicking (44% each). One-quarter (24%) participate in swimming. A small minority (11% to 12%) attend an event or walk a dog. Fewer engage in other waterfront activities, including kayaking or canoeing (10%), fishing or crabbing (6%), and boating (4%). 8 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 78

83 Executive Summary cont d Belcarra South Priorities for Belcarra South Just under four-in-ten (38%) feel that among the potential improvements to Belcarra South, environmental restoration is a top-two priority, including one-quarter (27%) who feel it is a top priority. The same proportion (38%) feel providing new park facilities is a top-two priority, including two-in-ten (19%) who feel is a top priority. One-third (34%) of residents feel improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas is a top-two priority, including fourteen percent (14%) who feel it is a top priority. Fewer residents feel the following are a top-two priority: Renovating existing buildings (23%) Improving vehicular access and parking (17%) Improving access for cyclists (7%) Two-in-ten (20%) residents do not have a preference. Regionally, residents in the central area of Metro Vancouver are more likely to prioritize environmental restoration than are those from other areas of Metro Vancouver (31% top priority versus 22% to 24%). More frequent Belcarra visitors are more likely than infrequent and non-visitors to include improving vehicular access and parking as a top-two priority (26% past year visitors versus 14% among less frequent and non-visitors). Do we feel park buildings should be removed? Metro Vancouver is unlikely to find suitable uses for all eight publicly-owned buildings in Belcarra South. A small majority (57%) of residents feel that some buildings should be removed. Two-inten (21%) feel none of the buildings should be removed. A small minority (6%) feels all the buildings should be removed. Sixteen percent (16%) have no preference. Crippen Regional Park Have we heard of Crippen Regional Park? One-in-ten (11%) residents have heard of Crippen Regional Park. Awareness is highest in the north west region and lowest in the eastern regions: North west (16% aware) Central (13%) South west (9%) South east (9%) North east (7%) 9 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 79

84 Executive Summary cont d How often do we visit Crippen Regional Park? When shown Crippen on a map, fifteen percent (15%) of residents recall visiting the park. Visitation is highest among residents from the north west and central regions: North west (24% ever visited) Central (21%) South west (12%) South east (8%) North east (8%) Five percent (5%) of residents have visited Crippen Regional Park in the past year. How long do we stay on Bowen Island? During their last visit to Crippen Regional Park, two-in-ten (21%) residents stayed on Bowen Island overnight. Three-in-ten (31%) stayed for less than a day, while the largest proportion (46%) made their visit into a day trip. What do we do at Crippen Regional Park? The largest proportion (77%) of residents who have visited Crippen Regional Park engaged in hiking or walking. The other most common activities are nature viewing (52%), picnicking (29%), attending an event (18%), and walking dogs (14%). Waterfront activities include swimming (13%), boating (12%), kayaking or canoeing (8%), and fishing or crabbing (4%). Davies Orchard area Priorities for Davies Orchard area Thirty-six percent (36%) of residents feel that providing public access to beach areas is a top-two priority, including just over twoin-ten (22%) who feel it is a top priority. Three-in-ten (29%) residents feel improving roads, trails and cycle paths is a top-two priority, including fifteen percent (15%) who feel it is a top priority. Fewer residents feel the following are a top-two priority: Providing improved educational signage and displays (15%) Renovating all or some of the existing buildings (14%) Providing improved and additional regional park programming activities (13%). The largest proportion of residents (46%) do not have a preference regarding priorities for the Davies Orchard area of Crippen Regional Park. 10 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 80

85 Research Findings 11 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 81

86 Regional Park Visitation 12 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 82

87 Parks visited in North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and Bowen Island Visited (net) 89% Burnaby Lake 75% Capilano River 64% Lynn Headwaters 47% Pacific Spirit Seymour River Greenway Crippen Brunette-Fraser Greenway/Sapperton Landing 15% 14% 22% 42% Q1a. Which of the following regional parks in North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Bowen Island, have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Q16. Have you ever visited Crippen Regional Park? Base: Total. 13 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 83

88 Parks visited in North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and Bowen Island BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Visited (net) 95% 97% 87% 85% 79% 89% Burnaby Lake 83% 73% 78% 66% 65% 75% Capilano River 69% 86% 59% 60% 52% 64% Lynn Headwaters 58% 80% 34% 38% 30% 47% Pacific Spirit 58% 43% 23% 43% 26% 42% Seymour River Greenway 25% 47% 17% 17% 16% 22% Crippen 21% 24% 8% 12% 8% 15% Brunette-Fraser Greenway/Sapp erton Landing 19% 6% 16% 8% 9% 14% Q1a. Which of the following regional parks in North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Bowen Island, have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Q16. Have you ever visited Crippen Regional Park? Base: Total. 14 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 84

89 Parks visited in the north east Visited (net) 64% Belcarra 52% Colony Farm 23% Pitt River Greenway Kanaka Creek Minnekhada 17% 16% 22% Q1b. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Belcarra, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Q16. Have you ever visited Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Total. 15 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 85

90 Parks visited in the north east BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Visited (net) 65% 64% 95% 52% 53% 64% Belcarra 54% 51% 84% 38% 39% 52% Colony Farm 25% 8% 48% 12% 17% 23% Pitt River Greenway 22% 14% 48% 14% 16% 22% Kanaka Creek 14% 9% 45% 10% 14% 17% Minnekhada 12% 8% 53% 8% 11% 16% Q1b. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Belcarra, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Q9. Have you ever visited Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Total. 16 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 86

91 Parks visited in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey Visited (net) 74% Boundary Bay 50% Iona Beach 34% Deas Island 34% Tynehead 30% Barnston Island 20% Delta South Surrey Greenway Surrey Bend 12% 10% Q1c. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Base: Total. 17 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 87

92 Parks visited in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Net visited 72% 59% 52% 90% 83% 74% Boundary Bay 50% 42% 31% 61% 55% 50% Iona Beach 41% 19% 13% 63% 24% 34% Deas Island 31% 22% 16% 58% 39% 34% Tynehead 21% 10% 19% 19% 59% 30% Barnston Island 14% 15% 19% 16% 35% 20% Delta South Surrey Greenway 11% 1% 7% 12% 21% 12% Surrey Bend 7% 5% 7% 6% 20% 10% None of the above 28% 41% 48% 10% 17% 26% Q1c. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Base: Total. 18 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 88

93 Parks visited in Langley and Abbotsford Visited (net) 44% Campbell Valley 26% Aldergrove 22% Derby Reach 18% Glen Valley 9% Matsqui Trail Brae Island 4% 8% Q1d. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Langley and Abbotsford have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Base: Total. 19 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 89

94 Parks visited in Langley and Abbotsford BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Visited (net) 33% 30% 42% 33% 71% 44% Campbell Valley 16% 11% 15% 20% 53% 26% Aldergrove 19% 17% 19% 13% 33% 22% Derby Reach 9% 8% 21% 7% 42% 18% Glen Valley 7% 4% 6% 3% 17% 9% Matsqui Trail 7% 5% 8% 4% 11% 8% Brae Island 2% 3% 3% 3% 9% 4% Q1d. Which of the following regional parks and greenways in Langley and Abbotsford have you ever visited? (Please check all that apply) Base: Total. 20 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 90

95 How often do we visit Regional Parks? More than once a week 6% About once a week 9% Two to three times a month 13% About once a month 16% About once every two months 13% Fewer than 5 visits per year 28% Not at all in the past year 10% Never 4% Q2. In the past year, how often have you visited Metro Vancouver s regional parks or greenways? Don t know 1% Base: Total. 21 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 91

96 How often do we visit Regional Parks? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total More than once a week 8% 7% 4% 2% 5% 6% About once a week 13% 9% 7% 7% 5% 9% Two to three times a month 15% 18% 12% 8% 12% 13% About once a month 15% 18% 17% 15% 15% 16% About once every two months 13% 12% 13% 16% 12% 13% Fewer than 5 visits per year 27% 24% 30% 30% 27% 28% Not at all in the past year 4% 5% 12% 15% 17% 10% Never 4% 2% 3% 5% 7% 4% Don t know 1% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% Q2. In the past year, how often have you visited Metro Vancouver s regional parks or greenways? Base: Total. 22 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 92

97 Regional Park Activities 23 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 93

98 What do we do at regional parks? Hiking/walking 83% Nature viewing 55% Picnicking 38% Walking dog Attending an event Visiting a nature centre Swimming Kayaking/canoeing Fishing/crabbing Boating Horseback riding Stewardship activities Other Don't know 25% 22% 15% 14% 10% 6% 5% 2% 2% 7% 2% Q3. Which activities do you participate in during visits to Metro Vancouver s regional parks or greenways? (Please check all that apply) Base: Visited one or more regional parks. 24 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 94

99 What do we do at regional parks? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Hiking/walking 88% 80% 82% 79% 76% 83% Nature viewing 60% 52% 48% 56% 51% 55% Picnicking 43% 29% 37% 40% 30% 38% Walking dog 25% 26% 22% 23% 27% 25% Attending an event 25% 20% 21% 21% 17% 22% Visiting a nature centre 15% 17% 11% 16% 15% 15% Swimming 18% 9% 14% 10% 9% 14% Kayaking/canoeing 14% 12% 8% 9% 5% 10% Fishing/crabbing 9% 3% 8% 3% 4% 6% Boating 6% 1% 7% 5% 3% 5% Horseback riding 1% 1% 2% 1% 4% 2% Stewardship activities 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% Other 9% 8% 4% 5% 8% 7% Don't know 1% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% Q3. Which activities do you participate in during visits to Metro Vancouver s regional parks or greenways? (Please check all that apply) Base: Visited one or more regional parks. 25 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 95

100 Facilities and Buildings 26 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 96

101 What is important to us at regional parks? Trails for walking or hiking 83% Picnic tables/shelters 43% Swim/beach access 17% Cycling paths 15% Nature centres 13% Docks/piers Trails for horseback riding No preference 2% 4% 9% Q4. Thinking about the main ways you may use regional parks, which of the following facilities do you feel are most important? Even if you have not recently visited a regional park we are interested in your opinion. Please select your top two. Base: Total. 27 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 97

102 What is important to us at regional parks? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Trails for walking or hiking 88% 80% 78% 75% 82% 83% Picnic tables/shelters 45% 33% 40% 46% 42% 43% Swim/beach access 18% 18% 22% 15% 14% 17% Cycling paths 17% 14% 14% 11% 16% 15% Nature centres 11% 14% 11% 16% 15% 13% Docks/piers 9% 10% 13% 7% 8% 9% Trails for horseback riding 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% No preference 2% 8% 5% 9% 5% 4% Q4. Thinking about the main ways you may use regional parks, which of the following facilities do you feel are most important? Even if you have not recently visited a regional park we are interested in your opinion. Please select your top two. Base: Total. 28 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 98

103 What are the best uses for publiclyowned buildings on park land? Shelters for picnicking 38% Preserved historic buildings 28% Education/Nature House 28% Food services 24% Weddings, meetings and events 18% Caretaker location Location for recreational rental equipment Artist studio or gallery Short-term overnight stays No preference 11% 11% 9% 8% 10% Q5. In some regional parks there are existing buildings for which Metro Vancouver must find park uses in order to justify renovating and maintaining them. Which of the following do you feel are the best uses for these buildings? Please select your top two. Base: Total. 29 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 99

104 What are the best uses for publiclyowned buildings on park land? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Shelters for picnicking 40% 29% 42% 37% 37% 38% Preserved historic buildings 24% 29% 30% 30% 32% 28% Education/Nature House 27% 34% 25% 27% 28% 28% Food services 28% 17% 26% 25% 17% 24% Weddings, meetings and events 17% 17% 18% 15% 20% 18% Caretaker location 10% 15% 10% 12% 13% 11% Location for recreational rental equipment 14% 6% 7% 9% 8% 11% Artist studio or gallery 11% 10% 5% 5% 9% 9% Short-term overnight stays 9% 6% 8% 6% 7% 8% No preference 8% 16% 11% 12% 11% 10% Q5. In some regional parks there are existing buildings for which Metro Vancouver must find park uses in order to justify renovating and maintaining them. Which of the following do you feel are the best uses for these buildings? Please select your top two. Base: Total. 30 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 100

105 Do we support removing buildings? Support 11% 49% Strongly Somewhat Oppose 9% 30% Don't know 20% Q6. When no regional park use exists, do you support or oppose removing houses, cabins, barns, and outbuildings to redirect the cost savings to other regional park services and facilities? Base: Total. 31 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 101

106 Do we support removing buildings? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Strongly support 8% 14% 12% 14% 12% 11% Somewhat support 43% 36% 33% 39% 34% 39% Somewhat oppose 22% 21% 20% 21% 20% 21% Strongly oppose 8% 10% 8% 9% 11% 9% Don t know 18% 20% 27% 18% 22% 20% Q6. When no regional park use exists, do you support or oppose removing houses, cabins, barns, and outbuildings to redirect the cost savings to other regional park services and facilities? Base: Total. 32 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 102

107 Are heritage buildings a more important priority than other services? More important 13% 46% Much Somewhat Less important 5% 18% Neither Don't know 6% 31% Q7. Metro Vancouver faces choices about how to share resources across regional park lands. Compared to regional park services such as providing trails and picnic areas, acquiring land and restoring habitat, do you feel maintaining and improving heritage buildings on regional park lands should become a more important or less important priority? Base: Total. 33 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 103

108 Are heritage buildings a more important priority than other services? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Much more important 13% 10% 15% 11% 15% 13% Somewhat more important 34% 32% 32% 33% 30% 33% Neither more nor less important 29% 35% 27% 31% 33% 31% Somewhat less important 15% 10% 12% 16% 11% 13% Much less important 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% Don t know 4% 7% 8% 5% 7% 6% Q7. Metro Vancouver faces choices about how to share resources across regional park lands. Compared to regional park services such as providing trails and picnic areas, acquiring land and restoring habitat, do you feel maintaining and improving heritage buildings on regional park lands should become a more important or less important priority? Base: Total. 34 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 104

109 Belcarra Regional Park 35 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 105

110 Have we heard of Belcarra Regional Park? Total 71% Central 73% North West 71% North East 90% South West 64% South East 61% Q8. Prior to this survey had you heard of Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Total. 36 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 106

111 Have we ever visited Belcarra Regional Park? Total 52% Central 54% North West 51% North East 84% South West 38% South East 39% Q9. Have you ever visited Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Total. 37 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 107

112 How often do we visit Belcarra Regional Park? More than once a week <1% About once a week 1% Two to three times a month 1% About once a month 2% About once every two months 2% Fewer than 5 visits per year 19% Not at all in the past year 26% Never 48% Q10. In the past year, how often have you visited Belcarra Regional Park? Don t know <1% Base: Total. 38 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 108

113 How often do we visit Belcarra Regional Park? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total More than once a week 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% <1% About once a week 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% Two to three times a month 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% About once a month 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% About once every two months 2% 1% 6% 2% 2% 2% Fewer than 5 visits per year 24% 12% 35% 9% 10% 19% Not at all in the past year 24% 36% 32% 24% 24% 26% Never 46% 49% 16% 62% 61% 48% Don t know <1% 0% <1% <1% <1% <1% Q10. In the past year, how often have you visited Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Total. 39 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 109

114 How do we travel to Belcarra Regional Park? Vehicle 93% Public transit 4% Bike 2% Motorcycle or scooter 2% Boat 2% Walk 2% Kayak/canoe Other Don t know 1% <1% 1% Q11. How do you usually travel to Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Ever visited Belcarra Regional Park. 40 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 110

115 What do we do at Belcarra Regional Park? Hiking/walking 73% Nature viewing Picnicking 44% 44% Swimming 24% Walking dog Attending an event Kayaking/canoeing Fishing/crabbing Boating Stewardship activities Other Don t know 12% 11% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3% 1% Q12. What activities do you participate in during visits to Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Ever visited Belcarra Regional Park. 41 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 111

116 What do we do at Belcarra Regional Park? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Hiking/walking 78% 72% 71% 60% 71% 73% Nature viewing 48% 35% 45% 40% 41% 44% Picnicking 46% 36% 41% 39% 48% 44% Swimming 27% 20% 23% 15% 27% 24% Walking dog 11% 6% 15% 8% 14% 12% Attending an event 12% 7% 12% 12% 10% 11% Kayaking/canoeing 14% 8% 6% 6% 6% 10% Fishing/crabbing 6% 3% 8% 7% 2% 6% Boating 4% 5% 5% 6% 2% 4% Stewardship activities 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Other 1% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% Don t know 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% Q12. What activities do you participate in during visits to Belcarra Regional Park? Base: Ever visited Belcarra Regional Park. 42 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 112

117 Belcarra South 43 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 113

118 How do we rank Belcarra South priorities? Top two priorities. Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection 27% 38% Providing new park facilities 19% 38% Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas 14% 34% Renovating existing buildings 9% 23% Improving vehicular access and parking Improving access for cyclists No preference Top priority 9% 3% 17% 7% 20% Second priority Q13. Metro Vancouver is considering investing in improvements in the part of the park known as Belcarra South. Please prioritize the importance of the following areas. 1 is the most important and 6 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Belcarra Regional Park we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. 44 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 114

119 Top Belcarra South priority BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection 31% 22% 24% 24% 23% 27% Providing new park facilities 18% 18% 22% 20% 19% 19% Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas 15% 14% 13% 14% 12% 14% Renovating existing buildings and adapting them for suitable park uses 11% 8% 7% 6% 6% 9% Improving vehicular access and parking 6% 9% 13% 7% 10% 9% Improving access for cyclists 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% No preference 15% 26% 19% 26% 25% 20% Q13. Metro Vancouver is considering investing in improvements in the part of the park known as Belcarra South. Please prioritize the importance of the following areas. 1 is the most important and 6 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Belcarra Regional Park we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. 45 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 115

120 Top two Belcarra South priorities BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection 43% 37% 37% 35% 34% 38% Providing new park facilities 38% 36% 40% 39% 37% 38% Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas 38% 30% 35% 29% 32% 34% Renovating existing buildings and adapting them for suitable park uses 26% 18% 21% 19% 22% 23% Improving vehicular access and parking 15% 19% 22% 16% 17% 17% Improving access for cyclists 9% 8% 5% 6% 6% 7% No preference 15% 26% 19% 26% 25% 20% Q13. Metro Vancouver is considering investing in improvements in the part of the park known as Belcarra South. Please prioritize the importance of the following areas. 1 is the most important and 6 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Belcarra Regional Park we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. 46 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 116

121 Do we feel park buildings should be removed? Remove all of the buildings 6% Remove some of the buildings 57% Remove none of the buildings No preference 16% 21% Q14. There are eight publicly owned waterfront buildings in Belcarra South, including seven with a heritage status. It is unlikely that Metro Vancouver will be able to find suitable regional park uses for all of these buildings. The cost of renovating and maintaining these buildings will require a reduction in resources available for other regional parks services and facilities. Knowing this, in your opinion, should Metro Vancouver Base: Total. 47 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 117

122 Do we feel park buildings should be removed? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Remove all of the buildings 5% 8% 11% 8% 3% 6% Remove some of the buildings 63% 58% 52% 53% 52% 57% Remove none of the buildings 19% 17% 24% 19% 24% 21% No preference 13% 17% 13% 20% 21% 16% Q14. There are eight publicly owned waterfront buildings in Belcarra South, including seven with a heritage status. It is unlikely that Metro Vancouver will be able to find suitable regional park uses for all of these buildings. The cost of renovating and maintaining these buildings will require a reduction in resources available for other regional parks services and facilities. Knowing this, in your opinion, should Metro Vancouver Base: Total. 48 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 118

123 Crippen Regional Park 49 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 119

124 Have we heard of Crippen Regional Park? Total 11% Central 13% North West 16% North East 7% South West 9% South East 9% Q15. Prior to this survey had you heard of Crippen Regional Park? Base: Total. 50 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 120

125 Have we ever visited Crippen Regional Park? Total 15% Central 21% North West 24% North East 8% South West 12% South East 8% Q16. Have you ever visited Crippen Regional Park? Base: Total. 51 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 121

126 How often do we visit Crippen Regional Park? More than once a week <1% About once a week <1% Two to three times a month <1% About once a month <1% About once every two months <1% Fewer than 5 visits per year 4% Not at all in the past year 10% Never 85% Q17. In the past year, how often have you visited Crippen Regional Park? Don t know <1% Base: Total. 52 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 122

127 How often do we visit Crippen Regional Park? BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total More than once a week 0% <1% 1% 0% 1% <1% About once a week 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1% Two to three times a month 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1% About once a month 0% 2% 0% 0% <1% <1% About once every two months 1% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1% Fewer than 5 visits per year 6% 7% 2% 2% 1% 4% Not at all in the past year 14% 14% 6% 8% 5% 10% Never 79% 76% 92% 88% 92% 85% Don t know 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1% Q17. In the past year, how often have you visited Crippen Regional Park? Base: Total. 53 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 123

128 How long did we stay on Bowen Island? Less than a full day 31% A full day (day trip) 46% One night or more 21% Don t know 3% Q18. Now thinking about the last time you visited Crippen Regional Park on Bowen Island, including your time spent at the park, how long was your stay on Bowen Island? Base: Crippen Park visitors. 54 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 124

129 What do we do at Crippen Regional Park? Hiking/walking 77% Nature viewing 52% Picnicking 29% Attending an event Walking dog Swimming Boating Kayaking/canoeing Fishing/crabbing Stewardship activities Playing baseball Don t know 18% 14% 13% 12% 8% 4% 1% 1% 4% Q19. What activities do you participate in during visits to Crippen Regional Park? Base: Crippen Regional Park visitors. 55 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 125

130 Davies Orchard Area 56 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 126

131 How do we rank park priorities? Top two priorities. Providing public access to beach areas for picnicking, swimming, viewing and nature appreciation 22% 36% Improving roads, trails and cycle paths to access the Davies Orchard area 15% 29% Providing improved regional park educational signage and displays 6% 15% Renovating all or some of the existing buildings in the Davies Orchard Area of Crippen Regional Park Providing improved and additional regional park programming activities No preference 7% 5% 14% 13% 46% 46% Q20. Metro Vancouver is considering improvements to the Davies Orchard area of Crippen Regional Park. Please prioritize the importance of the following regional park services. 1 is the most and 5 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Crippen Regional Park, we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. Top priority Second priority 57 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 127

132 Top Crippen priority BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Providing public access to beach areas 23% 19% 20% 20% 23% 22% Improving roads, trails and cycle paths 17% 18% 11% 16% 12% 15% Renovating all or some of the existing buildings 8% 9% 7% 5% 6% 7% Providing improved regional park educational signage and displays 7% 3% 3% 6% 5% 6% Providing improved and additional regional park programming activities 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% No preference 41% 46% 55% 49% 48% 46% Q20. Metro Vancouver is considering improvements to the Davies Orchard area of Crippen Regional Park. Please prioritize the importance of the following regional park services. 1 is the most and 5 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Crippen Regional Park, we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. 58 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 128

133 Top two Crippen priorities BY REGION Central North West North East South West South East Total Providing public access to beach areas 40% 38% 29% 33% 35% 36% Improving roads, trails and cycle paths 31% 32% 25% 30% 26% 29% Providing improved regional park educational signage and displays 15% 11% 13% 14% 16% 15% Renovating all or some of the existing buildings 14% 15% 13% 13% 14% 14% Providing improved and additional regional park programming activities 17% 9% 10% 10% 11% 13% No preference 41% 46% 55% 49% 48% 46% Q20. Metro Vancouver is considering improvements to the Davies Orchard area of Crippen Regional Park. Please prioritize the importance of the following regional park services. 1 is the most and 5 is the least important. Even if you have not recently visited Crippen Regional Park, we are interested in your opinion. Base: Total. 59 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 129

134 Demographics 60 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 130

135 Demographics Demographics Overall Gender Male 48% Female 52% Other <1% Age % % % % Demographics Type of home Overall Apartment/Condo 40% Detached house 39% Townhouse 14% Semi-detached house or duplex 5% Other 3% Region North East 13% North West 8% South East 26% South West 13% Central 41% 61 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 131

136 Justason Market Intelligence Inc. Vancouver Focus Barb Justason JustasonMI.com Howe Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z2T Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 132

137 Section E 1.2 To: From: Regional Parks Committee Jamie Vala, Division Manager, Central Area, Regional Parks Date: January 30, 2017 Meeting Date: March 1, 2017 Subject: Burnaby Lake Regional Park - Agreement Renewal for Picken House with Catching the Spirit Youth Society RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD Board approve the Agreement between the Greater Vancouver Regional District Catching the Spirit Youth Society for a term five-year term and nominal fee of $10 commencing nominal May 1, 2017 and ending April 30, 2022 for use of the Picken House in Burnaby Lake Regional Park. PURPOSE To seek authorization from the MVRD Board to renew the Agreement with Catching the Spirit Youth Society for use of the Picken House in Burnaby Lake Regional Park for a further term of five years, for nominal consideration of $10 hereby acknowledged. BACKGROUND Since 2014, Catching the Spirit Youth Society has occupied portions of the Picken House, a heritage house at the east edge of Burnaby Lake Regional Park (Attachment 1). The building and surrounding grounds for society administration and program delivery. The Catching the Spirit Youth Society is a registered nonprofit society. The purpose of the Catching the Spirit Youth Society is to develop and deliver region-wide youth programs in Metro Vancouver s regional parks in cooperation with park partners and the Pacific Parklands Foundation. Their current Agreement was for a term of three years and will expire on April 30, The existing agreement allows for one further 5-year renewal term from May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2022 at Metro Vancouver s sole discretion. Catching the Spirit Youth Society has provided its written request for a further five-year renewal. The land occupied by Catching the Spirit Youth Society is owned in fee simple by the MVRD. Catching the Spirit Youth Society utilizes common use areas (as defined in the Agreement) within the building. These include meeting rooms, a washroom, a kitchen, exclusive use of an office, administration room, storage, and programming space. In addition, Catching the Spirit Youth Society maintains a series of raised garden beds outside the building, and uses a surrounding lawn and parking area. The Picken House is a designated heritage building in the City of Burnaby (Bylaw 11756) and the use of the building by a nonprofit society operating in regional parks is considered an appropriate park use. Prior to the Catching the Spirit Youth Society s occupation the building sat empty for a number of years Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 133

138 Burnaby Lake Regional Park - Agreement Renewal for Picken House with Catching the Spirit Youth Society Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: March 1, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Agreement Terms The Agreement requires Catching the Spirit Youth Society to: pay its proportionate share of costs MVRD incurs to provide basic maintenance and services; pay at its sole cost and expense all telecommunication works, any applicable taxes, janitorial services, and additional maintenance of Catching the Spirit Youth Society Use Areas and Common Use Areas; maintain $2 million in comprehensive general liability insurance; provide annual financial statements and reports on its activities; and, seek MVRD approval for any changes to the site. The Agreement can be terminated by either party with six months notice or if Catching the Spirit Youth Society fails to perform any of its obligations under the Agreement and such failure continues for 30 days after Metro Vancouver has given notice of such failure. Term and Agreement fee The term for the proposed agreement renewal is for five years ending April 30, The fee for the Agreement is a nominal $10.00 hereby acknowledged. The Agreement is not considered a disposition of land under the Local Government Act. Value to MVRD Catching the Spirit Youth Society was founded in 2001 and works closely with Metro Vancouver Regional Parks partners and the Pacific Parklands Foundation in developing and meeting program objectives. MVRD currently holds a separate Contribution Agreement with the Catching the Spirit Youth Society supporting its programming with a $75,000 annual contribution, which is used to leverage other funds. Catching the Spirit Youth Society provides the following services to Metro Vancouver: Operates the Catching the Spirit Program serving up to 500 youth in regional parks each year; In 2015, the Catching the Spirit Youth Society Programs and volunteers participated in excess of 11,000 hours of programming and activities in regional parks; Participants are involved in stewardship projects, environmental citizenship programs and youth leadership initiatives; and Funds are used to hire Catching the Spirit Youth Society staff, administer their program, purchase equipment and supplies, and leverage additional donations and support from other sources. Their function is compatible with the regional park and their continued presence is valuable and benefits Burnaby Lake Regional Park and numerous other regional parks. Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 134

139 Burnaby Lake Regional Park - Agreement Renewal for Picken House with Catching the Spirit Youth Society Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: March 1, 2017 Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. That the MVRD Board approve the Agreement between the Greater Vancouver Regional District Catching the Spirit Youth Society for a term five-year term and nominal fee of $10 commencing nominal May 1, 2017 and ending April 30, That the Regional Parks Committee receive the report dated January 30, 2017, titled Burnaby Lake Regional Park Agreement Renewal for Picken House with Catching the Spirit Youth Society as information and provide alternate direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The $10 fee is a nominal non-market fee, which is common to most Metro Vancouver agreements and licenses for non-profit societies. The Society s operations and maintenance of the Picken House interior and grounds reduces the costs to maintain the building incurred by Metro Vancouver. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Catching the Spirit Youth Society is a registered nonprofit society that has been operating out of the Picken House in Burnaby Lake Regional Park since The Society provides volunteer environmental stewardship services and youth programming within Burnaby Lake Regional Park and other regional parks, with the support of the Pacific Parklands Foundation, Metro Vancouver and others. Catching the Spirit Youth Society has used the Picken House and grounds responsibly during the current term. Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the MVRD Board approve the renewal of the Agreement between Catching the Spirit Youth Society and MVRD for the continued use of the Picken House for an additional five years at a nominal fee of $10. Attachments: (orbit doc ) 1. Map of Burnaby Lake Regional Park and location of Picken House 2. Catching the Spirit Youth Society Agreement Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 135

140 BURN A BY L A K E RE GI O NA L PA R K Attachment 1 Picken Ho u se lo c atio n I n s et map F Trail - Metro Vancouver Trail Lo Picken House Road ug he Park Boundaries ed Hw Inset map extent y Last modified W 2014 orthophotography in st on St m y1 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks iw rd la Gag RN Hw YL AKE R E G I O N A L PA R K ay BU AB

141 Attachment 2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference March, BETWEEN: METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 ( Metro Vancouver ) AND: CATCHING THE SPIRIT YOUTH SOCIETY (SOCIETY INC. NO. S ) c/o Pacific Parklands Foundation 7 th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 ( CTS ) WHEREAS: A. Metro Vancouver is the registered owner in fee simple and beneficial owner of land within the City of Burnaby on which there is a heritage building known as Picken House (the Building ), having an address more particularly described as: 6825 Cariboo Road PID: Lot 9, Except acres shown red on Plan 6121 of Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, DL14, GP1, NW District Plan 3047 (the Land ). B. The Land is in Metro Vancouver s Burnaby Lake Regional Park. C. CTS is registered as a society pursuant to the B.C. Society Act, having incorporation number S D. Metro Vancouver has applied for, and the City of Burnaby has granted, a re zoning of the Land to permit the use of the Land and Building for the Permitted Uses (as defined in this Agreement). E. CTS has requested, and Metro Vancouver has agreed to permit, the use of portions of the Building and the Land as described in this Agreement. 1 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 137

142 NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the premises, covenants, and agreements contained in this Agreement and the sum of $10.00 paid by CTS to Metro Vancouver, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Metro Vancouver and CTS covenant and agree with each other as follows: 1.0 Use Areas 1.1 Metro Vancouver, subject to the performance and observance by CTS of the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements contained in this Agreement, permits CTS, its agents, employees, and invitees, to use the following portions of the Building and the Land (together, the CTS Use Areas ) shown on the building plan attached hereto as Schedule A and site plan attached hereto as Schedule B, as marked and described in Table 1: Table 1 CTS Use Areas Part of Building/Land marked as Shown on Schedule Permitted Use Office A in heavy black outline Office Administration and Records A in heavy black outline Office Storage and Program Space A in heavy black outline Storage Raised Garden Beds B in dotted outline Gardening Lawn B in dashed outline Landscaping 1.2 CTS shall use and occupy the CTS Use Areas only for the uses specified in Table 1 (the Permitted Uses ), or for such other purposes as Metro Vancouver may give prior authorization in writing. 1.3 Subject to section 1.4, Metro Vancouver will not authorize others to use the CTS Use Areas during the term of this Agreement. 1.4 Nothing in this Agreement restricts or limits the rights of Metro Vancouver, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and invitees, to exercise full and complete rights to enter upon and use the Building, including the CTS Use Areas, or the Land for the purpose of carrying out any operations or activities associated with Metro Vancouver s use, control, operation or management of Burnaby Lake Regional Park as a regional park and the Land and Building as regional park property. 2 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 138

143 2.0 Term 2.1 The term of this Agreement is for five (5) years commencing on May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2022 (the Term ), unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement. 2.2 As consideration for the rights granted under this Agreement, CTS has paid Metro Vancouver the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars for the Term, and Metro Vancouver hereby acknowledges receipt of this sum. 2.3 If, after the expiry of the Term, CTS continues to occupy the CTS Use Areas without objection by Metro Vancouver and without any written agreement providing otherwise, then CTS will be deemed to be a licensee on a month to month basis and is subject to the provisions of this Agreement in so far as its provisions are applicable. Metro Vancouver may terminate CTS s continued use of the CTS Use Areas under this section by delivering to CTS notice to that effect, and thirty (30) days after delivery of such notice, continued use of the Licence Area shall immediately cease without prejudice to any rights of Metro Vancouver under this Agreement that accrued before the termination. 3.0 Common Use Areas 3.1 Subject to sections 3.3 and 3.4, and subject to the performance and observance by CTS of the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements contained in this Agreement, CTS may use the portions of the Building shown with grey hatching on Schedule A, as marked and described in Table 2 and including doorways, corridors, stairways and washroom facilities in the Building (the Common Use Areas ): Table 2 Common Use Areas Part of Building/Common Use Area Break Out Room Reception Meeting Room I Meeting Room II Kitchen Common Use Area Permitted Use Meeting room Reception area Meeting room Meeting room Kitchen 3.2 CTS shall use and occupy the Common Use Areas only for the uses specified in Table 2 (the Common Use Area Permitted Uses ) in connection with the use of the CTS Use Areas for community purposes, or for such other purposes as Metro Vancouver may give prior authorization in writing. 3 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 139

144 3.3 Upon giving at least 7 calendar days prior written notice ( Temporary Use Notice ) to CTS, Metro Vancouver may permit temporary exclusive use ( Temporary Use ) to any person, including societies, associations and community groups ( Other Authorized Users ), for the period of time specified in the Temporary Use Notice, of all or any portion of the Common Use Areas for the Common Use Area Permitted Uses set out in Table During the period of Temporary Use specified in a Temporary Use Notice, CTS will not restrict, interfere with, or in any way impair the rights Metro Vancouver has granted to Other Authorized Users to use the portions of the Common Use Areas as specified in the Temporary Use Notice. 4.0 General Terms of Use 4.1 CTS shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) throughout the Term, maintain its status as a registered society in good standing in British Columbia; use and occupy the CTS Use Areas and the Common Use Areas in a safe, careful and proper manner so as not to contravene any present or future laws, rules, regulations, bylaws, orders, or ordinances; not abandon the CTS Use Areas at any time during the Term without Metro Vancouver s prior written consent, which consent may be withheld for any reason; not cause or maintain any nuisance and shall keep the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas free of debris and anything of a dangerous, noxious or offensive nature, and shall not do anything that could create a fire or environmental hazard; not place, store, use, manufacture, install, bring upon, create or release any Hazardous Substance in, on or from the Land, the Building, the CTS Use Areas or the Common Use Areas, or permit any of the same. If CTS causes, permits, or allows any Hazardous Substance to be stored, used, manufactured, installed, brought upon, created or released, CTS shall remove or cause removal of the same within 24 hours of Metro Vancouver s demand. CTS shall indemnify and hold Metro Vancouver harmless from any action, cause of action, suit, debt, account, claim, damages, interest, costs, expenses, compensation or demands, including costs of remediation and professional fees, in connection with such Hazardous Substance, Metro Vancouver s removal or remediation thereof, and from any breach of the obligations of CTS regarding a Hazardous Substance. In this Agreement, Hazardous Substance means all explosives, radioactive materials, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous or toxic substances, special waste, or other waste, whether regulated or not. The obligations set out in this section 4.1(e) shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement; 4 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 140

145 (f) (g) (h) (i) at its sole cost and expense, observe and comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, bylaws, orders, and ordinances of all federal, provincial, regional, municipal or other government or any agency, authority or body, and any demand or imposed obligation of any and all competent authorities, including an association of fire insurance underwriters or agents, and all notices issued thereunder, that are served upon Metro Vancouver or CTS; not cause any damage to the CTS Use Areas, Common Use Areas, the Building, or the Land; not use any fireplace within the Building; and not paint, display, inscribe, place or affix any sign, picture, advertisement, notice, lettering or direction on any part of the outside of the Building or inside the CTS Use Areas or Building without Metro Vancouver s prior written approval. 5.0 Maintenance, Systems, and Services A. Building Systems and Structure 5.1 Metro Vancouver shall, at its sole cost and expense: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) maintain and repair the foundations, structure, roof, and drainage of the Building, and operate, maintain, repair and replace such foundations, structure, roof and drainage as necessary for the proper operation of the Building; provide a security alarm system for the Building; maintain the exterior painting of the Building; provide exterior window washing; provide, maintain, and repair a fire sprinkler system for the Building; provide, maintain, and repair lighting fixtures and ballasts for ordinary lighting; provide, maintain, and repair the plumbing system and running water for the Building; and clean and maintain the on site septic sewerage system ( Septic System ). B. Basic Maintenance and Services 5.2 Metro Vancouver shall provide the following basic maintenance and services to the Building, for which CTS shall pay its Proportionate Share (as defined in this Agreement): (a) electricity for ordinary lighting and small business machines; 5 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 141

146 (b) (c) (d) heating, ventilation and exhaust systems; gas system; and pest control for rodents and vermin. 5.3 CTS shall, immediately upon demand, pay Metro Vancouver 50% (the Proportionate Share ) of the costs Metro Vancouver incurs to provide the basic maintenance and services in section 5.2. Any unpaid amounts shall be a debt due and owing from CTS to Metro Vancouver. C. Other Maintenance and Services 5.4 Except to the extent that Metro Vancouver is specifically responsible under this Agreement, CTS shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep, repair and maintain the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas in a neat and safe condition, all to the reasonable satisfaction of Metro Vancouver and all in accordance with the standards required of similar premises under the Occupiers Liability Act and at common law. CTS shall ensure that a person will be reasonably safe in using the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas. 5.5 Without limiting the generality of section 5.4, CTS shall, at its sole cost and expense: (a) (b) (c) perform maintenance and janitorial services, including of floors and interior windows in the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas; perform maintenance and janitorial services of washrooms in the Common Use Areas; collect and remove all garbage, debris, rubbish, and recycling from the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas to the Burnaby Lake Regional Park Works Yard dumpster, at least on a weekly basis or forthwith upon the conclusion of a Temporary Use, whichever occurs first. Without limiting the foregoing, CTS shall ensure that the kitchen in the Common Use Area is maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and is cleaned promptly following any use. 5.6 Without limiting the generality of section 5.4, CTS shall, at its sole cost and expense: (a) (b) provide snow and ice removal from the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas; and replace light bulbs and lighting tubes in the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas. 6.0 Improvements 6.1 Except as may be specifically provided for in this Agreement, CTS shall not construct or place any buildings or structures, or make, install, or perform any construction work, make improvements or otherwise alter the CTS Use Areas, Common Use Areas, or the Building, 6 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 142

147 including performing any drilling, cutting, coring, patching, or other alterations to the floors, walls, drywall, columns, roof, foundation, or other systems or structures of the Building. A. Telecommunications 6.2 Subject to section 6.4, CTS may, at its sole cost and expense, install telephone, cable, Internet or other similar telecommunications works ( Telecommunications Works ) to or within the CTS Use Areas. In such event, CTS shall be solely responsible for insuring, repairing, and maintaining the Telecommunications Works. For certainty, Metro Vancouver shall have no responsibility for the installation, provision, repair, maintenance or payment of any Telecommunications Works, except such Telecommunications Works that Metro Vancouver has installed for the purposes of the security alarm system for the building ( Security System Works ). 6.3 CTS shall not use, make use of, alter, or cause damage to the Security System Works. 6.4 Prior to the installation of any Telecommunications Works, CTS shall seek the written approval of Metro Vancouver and Metro Vancouver may impose any terms, conditions, or requirements on its approval that Metro Vancouver deems reasonable. B. Upgrade Works 6.5 If, to enhance or facilitate CTS s use of the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas, CTS requires work on, improvements or alterations to the structure or systems of the Building, including without limitation drilling, cutting, coring, patching, or other alterations to the floors, walls, drywall, columns, roof, or foundation of the Building ( Upgrade Works ), then CTS shall, prior to the commencement of any such work: (a) (b) seek Metro Vancouver s prior written approval, and Metro Vancouver may impose any terms, conditions, or requirements on its approval that Metro Vancouver deems reasonable, or withhold approval for any reason; and if approved, obtain a building permit from the local government authority having jurisdiction to authorize the Upgrade Works, and obtain all other required approvals and inspections. 6.6 Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, all approved Upgrade Works shall be performed by Metro Vancouver, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or invitees only, at CTS s sole cost and expense. 6.7 CTS shall, immediately upon demand, pay Metro Vancouver the costs of Upgrade Works performed and any unpaid amounts shall be a debt due and owing from CTS to Metro Vancouver. C. Required Work 7 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 143

148 6.8 If, during the Term, a federal, provincial, regional, municipal or other government, agency, authority, or body, or an insurer, requires any work on, or improvements or alterations to the Building as a result of CTS s use of the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas ( Required Works ), then CTS shall, prior to the commencement of any such work: (a) (b) seek Metro Vancouver s prior written approval, and Metro Vancouver may impose any terms, conditions, or requirements on its approval that Metro Vancouver deems reasonable; and if approved, obtain a building permit from the local government authority having jurisdiction to authorize the Required Works, and obtain all other required approvals and inspections. 6.9 All approved Required Works shall be performed by Metro Vancouver, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or invitees only, at CTS s sole cost and expense CTS shall, immediately upon demand, pay Metro Vancouver the costs of Required Works performed and any unpaid amounts shall be a debt due and owing from CTS to Metro Vancouver. 7.0 Landscaping and Fencing 7.1 CTS shall, at its sole cost and expense, install security fencing around the Septic System marked on Schedule B as Septic Field, in accordance with the plans and designs that Metro Vancouver provides to CTS. 7.2 CTS may install and maintain raised garden beds (the Raised Garden Beds ) on the part of the CTS Use Area shown with a dotted outline on Schedule B and marked as Raised Garden Beds. Prior to the installation of the Raised Garden Beds, CTS shall seek the written approval of Metro Vancouver and Metro Vancouver may impose any terms, conditions, or requirements that Metro Vancouver deems reasonable, including terms and conditions on the deposit and removal of any soil or fill. 7.3 Metro Vancouver shall provide tree pruning, lawn maintenance, and leaf clearing of the part of the CTS Use Area shown with a dashed outline on Schedule B and marked as Lawn until such time as CTS has completed installation of the Raised Garden Beds. Upon completion of the Raised Garden Beds, CTS shall perform lawn maintenance and leaf clearing at its sole cost and expense. 7.4 CTS shall not cut, clear, prune, or remove any trees, bushes or other vegetation, except such activities on the Raised Garden Beds and to perform required lawn maintenance and leaf clearing in accordance with this Agreement. CTS shall not perform any invasive species management or other non routine maintenance within the CTS Use Area without the prior written approval of Metro Vancouver. 8 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 144

149 8.0 Inspections 8.1 Metro Vancouver may, by its agents, employees, or contractors, enter the CTS Use Areas, Common Use Areas, the Land, and the Building at any time to inspect for compliance with this Agreement and if Metro Vancouver determines that repairs or maintenance are necessary, Metro Vancouver will notify CTS in writing and CTS shall perform such repairs or maintenance in a manner and within a time period to Metro Vancouver s satisfaction. Metro Vancouver will give CTS 48 hours prior notice of an inspection. 8.2 If CTS fails to repair or maintain the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas in accordance with this Agreement, Metro Vancouver may, by its agents, employees, or contractors, make reasonable repairs or do reasonable maintenance and the cost of such repairs or maintenance will be a debt due and owing from CTS to Metro Vancouver immediately upon demand. 9.0 Taxes 9.1 Metro Vancouver and CTS acknowledge that the City of Burnaby has, at the time of this Agreement, agreed to exempt the Building and Land from payment of municipal property taxes and assessments. If, due to CTS s use or occupation of the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas, the Building or the Land become subject to any taxes, rates, duties, and assessments, whether federal, provincial, municipal, or otherwise, CTS shall pay forthwith such taxes, rates, duties, and assessments, whether federal, provincial, municipal, or otherwise Insurance and Indemnification 10.1 CTS shall indemnify and save harmless Metro Vancouver and its directors, officers, employees, agents, and other representatives (the Metro Vancouver Parties ) from and against all actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses, of any kind or nature (including, without limitation, in respect of death, injury, loss, or damage to any person or property) in connection with: (a) (b) CTS s use, occupation, maintenance, or repair of the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas; or the exercise of CTS s rights under this Agreement. The obligations set out in this section 10.1 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement CTS shall remise, release, and discharge the Metro Vancouver Parties from and against all actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses, of any kind or nature (including, without limitation, in respect of death, injury, loss, or damage to any person or property) in connection with: 9 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 145

150 (a) (b) CTS s use, occupation, maintenance, or repair of the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas; or the exercise of CTS s rights under this Agreement. The obligations set out in this section 10.2 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement CTS shall, at its sole cost and expense, obtain and maintain throughout the Term commercial general liability insurance to the satisfaction of Metro Vancouver, in an amount no less than $2,000,000 or as otherwise directed by Metro Vancouver, and shall provide evidence satisfactory to Metro Vancouver of such insurance and any renewals. Such insurance policy will include an acknowledgement of this Agreement as an insured contract and will include the Metro Vancouver Parties as additional insureds CTS shall indemnify and save harmless Metro Vancouver from and against any lien or charge in connection with the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas. The obligations set out in this section 10.4 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement CTS shall obtain and maintain All Risk property insurance that shall contain a waiver of the insurer s subrogation rights against the Metro Vancouver Parties Notices 11.1 The parties agree that any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to be sufficiently given if mailed from any government post office in British Columbia by prepaid registered mail or if delivered by e mail addressed as follows: (a) (b) if to Metro Vancouver: Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Attention: Jamie Vala Jamie.vala@metrovancouver.org if to CTS: Catching the Spirit Youth Society c/o Pacific Parklands Foundation 7 th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Attention: Robert Gunn bobgunn@catchingthespirit.com or the address a party may from time to time designate. Notice shall be deemed to have been received 5 days after the time and date of mailing or, if e mailed, when acknowledgement is given by the receiving party. 10 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 146

151 12.0 Termination 12.1 If CTS fails to observe or perform any obligation under this Agreement, and if such failure continues for 30 days after Metro Vancouver has given written notice of such failure (or such longer period of time as may be reasonably necessary in the circumstances, provided that CTS is continuously and diligently proceeding to remedy the breach to Metro Vancouver s satisfaction), then Metro Vancouver may terminate this Agreement and all rights of CTS under this Agreement will immediately lapse and be absolutely forfeited Either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving 6 month s written notice to the other party Upon termination or expiry of this Agreement, CTS shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) remove any office machines, equipment, furniture, signage, and other similar personal property of CTS; surrender all keys to the Building to Metro Vancouver; if requested by Metro Vancouver, remove from the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas any improvements, including Upgrade Works and Required Works, or any other thing that Metro Vancouver requests, at CTS s sole cost and expense; deliver the CTS Use Areas and Common Use Areas in a neat and tidy condition, to the satisfaction of Metro Vancouver; and all rights of CTS under this Agreement will immediately lapse and be absolutely forfeited Unless Metro Vancouver otherwise notifies CTS, upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, all fixtures and improvements made, constructed, erected or installed in or on the CTS Use Areas or Common Use Areas, including Telecommunications Works, Upgrade Works, and Required Works, will become the property of Metro Vancouver at no cost to Metro Vancouver. 11 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 147

152 13.0 Forfeiture 13.1 Metro Vancouver, by waiving or neglecting to enforce the right to forfeiture of this Agreement or upon breach of this Agreement, does not waive Metro Vancouver's rights upon any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement General Terms 14.1 CTS warrants and represents that the execution of this Agreement by CTS on behalf of a group is a warranty and representation to Metro Vancouver that CTS has sufficient power, authority, and capacity to bind the group with its signature CTS agrees to inform all responsible persons associated with the group of the terms and conditions of this Agreement A provision in this Agreement granting Metro Vancouver a right of approval must be interpreted as granting a free and unrestricted right to be exercised by Metro Vancouver in its discretion This Agreement does not grant any interest in the CTS Use Areas or the Common Use Areas to CTS and does not run with the Land Waiver of any default by a party must not be interpreted or deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default CTS acknowledges that this Agreement is personal to CTS. CTS shall not assign or sublicense any rights or delegate any obligations under this Agreement to any person or occupier without the prior written consent of Metro Vancouver, which consent may be withheld for any reason This Agreement, together with the Schedules, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and cancels and supercedes any prior agreement between the parties with respect to this Agreement When the singular or neuter are used in this Agreement they include the plural or the feminine or the masculine or the body politic where the context or the parties require. The headings to the clauses in this Agreement have been inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference only and in no way define, limit or enlarge the scope or meaning of this Agreement or any provision of it. When used in this Agreement, the word will shall be construed to have the same meaning and effect as the word shall This Agreement will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws applicable in the Province of British Columbia This Agreement will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties, and their respective successors and assigns. 12 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 148

153 14.11 This Agreement may be executed and delivered electronically and in counterparts, and upon the execution and delivery of each such counterpart by each party to the other, this Agreement will be binding upon the parties. The authorized signatories of the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the reference date above. CATCHING THE SPIRIT YOUTH SOCIETY By its authorized signatory(ies) METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT By its authorized signatory Print name: Print title: Carol Mason Chief Administrative Officer Print name: Print title: 13 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 149

154 Schedule A 14 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 150

155 Schedule B 15 Metro Vancouver Regional District - Parks - 151