belcarra south planning program engagement summary · thursday, july 16, 2016, south picnic site 19...

METRO VANCOUVER

BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK

BELCARRA SOUTHPLANNING PROGRAM

ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY FINAL REPORTAUGUST 10, 2016

Prepared by:

METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 1

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 LETTERB. SITE SIGNAGEC. FEEDBACK FORMD. PROJECT BUSINESS CARDE. OPEN HOUSE BOARDSF. TRANSCRIPTS OF COMMENTS FROM FEEDBACK FORMS

2234455

66678

1012

13

14


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.

1.0 INTRODUCTION + BACKGROUND

I Belcarra South Beaches and Cabins

I Belcarra South Picnic Area

I Bole House circa 1980 from Forest to Fjord by Ralph Drew


0 20 50 m

N

extent of study area

LEGEND

cabinbeach

mainbeach

picnicarea

parking

bolebeach access road

hiking trail

maintenance road

existing cabin

Tum Tumay Whueton Dr.

Bedwell Bay Rd.

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.

I Belcarra South Planning Program Study Area


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.

1.4 NOTIFICATIONSA variety of methods were used to notify the public about the pen o ses. he follo ing provides a synopsis of notification methods.

. 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 e-mail, 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.

I Open House set up for Thursday, July 16, 2016


Belcarra South Planning ProgramPublic Open House No. 1Thursday, July 1411 am – 3 pm

Location: Belcarra Picnic Area

Public Consultation for Belcarra South Planning Program

Metro Vancouver is pleased to host two upcoming public consultation events at the Belcarra Picnic Area to:

• review current issues and opportunities facing this specific area of the regional park;

• answer questions from the public and gather input on future programming and development in this part of the regional park.

The study area includes the lands south of the existing Belcarra Picnic Area including the forest trails and waterfront.

Drop by anytime during the events to provide your feedback and help shape future park programming and development for the south of Belcarra Regional Park.

More Information:Karin England, Regional Park Planner, Metro Vancouver 604-520-6442 or [email protected]

Public Open House No. 2as part of Canada’s Parks DaySaturday, July 1610 am – 4 pm

I Newspaper Advertisement


1.5 MEDIA COVERAGEhere 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 , ri ity e srticle by Sarah ayne

on the project

ne , anco ver S nrticle by elly Sinoski

on the project

ne , Province Newspa-per on-line version

Letter to the Editor by eborah St ck, el-

carra Resident

ly , anco ver S n

rticle by elly Sinoski on the cottages at Crip-pen Regional Park on

o en sland. he ar-ticle also discussed the

elcarra ark cabins.

ly , ri ity e srticle by Sarah ayne

on the upcoming Open Houses

1.6 ATTENDEEShere 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.

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.

D

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.

ATTENDANCE

No. Item Approx. No.

1 h rsday, ly ,

2 Sat rday, ly , 100

3 h rsday, ly , 20


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.

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.

2.0 FEEDBACK SUMMARY

FEEDBACK FORMS RETURNED

No. Item Approx. No.

1Thursday, July 16, 2016, South Picnic Site

19

2Saturday, July 18, 2016South Picnic Site

30

3Thursday, July 21, 2016White Pine Beach

10

4 On-line 137

Total 196

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.

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 Reported Activities in the Park (on Open Houses Days shown as a percentage)

I Visiting Frequency (shown as a percentage)


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)


2.4 ACCESS and AMENITIESQ4 If improvements were to be made to the Belcarra South area which

improvements would you support?

Q5 How did you get to the regional park today?

Q6 Were you able to get to the regional park easily and safely?

Q7 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)


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 easilyand 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.


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)


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.


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)


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 STEPSaking 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 14

APPENDICES

A. STAKEHOLDER LETTERB. SITE SIGNAGEC. FEEDBACK FORMD. PROJECT BUSINESS CARDE. OPEN HOUSE BOARDSF. TRANSCRIPTS OF COMMENTS FROM FEEDBACK FORMS

8 metrovancouver

� SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

July 4, 2016

To Whom It May Concern,

Regional Parks Central Area Office

Tel. 604.520.6442 Fax 604.520.3520

File: PA-03-01-BEL

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 www.metrovancouver.org and search the term "Belcarra

Planning Program". An online questionnaire will be available from July 7th until July 24th, 2016.

Sincerely,

K�� Park Planner, Regional Parks Central Area KE/gp

Attachment: Belcarra Regional Park -Map showing extent of study area. 18715673

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4GB • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District• Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

APPENDIX A

Public Open House No. 1Thursday, July 14 11 am – 3 pm Belcarra Picnic Area

Public Open House No. 2 as part of Canada’s Parks Day Saturday, July 16 10 am – 4 pm Belcarra Picnic Area

Public engagement for Belcarra South Planning Program


Belcarra South Planning Program

Metro Vancouver is pleased to host two upcoming public engagement events at the Belcarra Picnic Area to:

• review current issues and opportunities facing this specific area of the regional park;

• answer questions from the public and gather input onfuture programming and development in this part of theregional park.

Drop by anytime during the events to provide your feedback and help shape future park programming and development for the south of Belcarra Regional Park.

For more information, contact Karin England, Regional Park Planner, Metro Vancouver 604-520-6442 or email [email protected] AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

APPENDI

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.

2. How often do you come to this regional park? Please check the appropriate response.

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?

Additional Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ACCESS AND AMENITIES 4. If improvements were to be made to the Belcarra South area which improvements would you support?


5. How did you get to the regional park today? Please circle one.

Car Motorcycle/Scooter Bike Walked Transit

☐ Walking / Hiking ☐ Kayaking / Canoeing

☐ Picnicking ☐ Attending Interpretive Event☐ Fishing / Crabbing ☐ Attending Public Engagement Event☐ Boating ☐ Other

☐ 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

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral Somewhat

Disagree

Disagree

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

Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral Somewhat

Disagree

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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

APPENDIX C

6. Were you able to get to the regional park easily and safely? Yes No


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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


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 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improving vehicular access and parking 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improving access for cyclists 1 2 3 4 5 6

Providing new park facilities (trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, interpretive displays, outhouses)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Restoring existing buildings and adapting them for new uses 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.

We thank you for your input!

Name: Email:


Welcome to the Open HouseWhere 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.


The mandate of Metro Vancouver Regional Parks: 1. Protect important natural areas2. Provide opportunities for people to connect to nature

Did you know...Metro Vancouver operates a regional parks system composed of 23 regional parks, three regional park reserves, two ecological

The regional park borders on the Villages of Belcarra and Anmore and City of Port MoodyBelcarra Regional Park is valued because of its water focused activities including:

Walking and hiking on water-side trailsSwimmingCrabbing/FishingBoatingEnvironmental interpretation and stewardship

Regional Park ContextBelcarra Regional Park

StudyArea

Bedwell Bay Road

Tum

Tumay Whueton Drive

Concession/WashroomBuilding


Dock PicnicArea Parking

Lot

MAP INSET

7

1

1


0 20 50 m

N

**

History and Past Land UsesBelcarra Regional Park

midden

LEGEND

MAINBEACH

SOUTH BEACH

BOLE BEACH

Did you know...The Belcarra Picnic Area was once a major First Nations Village. Artifacts indicate settlement dating back 3,000 yearsTwelve archaeological sites have been documented in or adjacent to the regional parkThe 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 useThe 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 servicesThe 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

Sources: Belcarra Park Archeological History Report, 1985; Belcarra Regional Park Plan, 1985; Forest & Fjord: The History of Belcarra, Ralph Drew, 2013. Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.43

Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.30





Coast Salish potlatch, Burrard Inlet

Belcarra regional park midden site Belcarra regional park site artifacts


Planning HistoryBelcarra Regional Park

Previous Planning and DesignIn 1985 the Belcarra Regional Park Plan was developed and in 1994 a pre-design report was preparedThese documents provided a blueprint or guide for how a park should develop into

time they were created and periodically

and valuesBoth 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 tablesPicnic sheltersPark centre for washrooms, food services, information and interpretive display Park trailsUnderwater marine parkProtected cormorant roosting trees Parking lotsBeach 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 criteriaThe pre-design document showed the following amenities at this area of the regional park:

BoardwalkInterpretive featuresNew wharfsRe-purposed Bole HouseCanoe rental and storagePark operationsWork boat storagePicnic areas with picnic tablesProtected cormorant roosting areaWashrooms Parking


t

South Picnic Study AreaBelcarra Regional Park

PICNIC AREA

MAINBEACH

SOUTH BEACH

BOLE BEACH

4. Rock Outcrop

5. Cabins

7. Rocky Headland

1. Picnic Shelters

8. Bole House

2. Picnic Tables 6. South Beach

3. Trails

6

7

8

5

12

3

PARKING AREA

extents of study area

4

02 0 50 m

N

main beach

picnicarea

southbeach

bolebeach

Why is Metro Vancouver doing this work now?

The regional park is busier, particularly in the summer monthsThe regional population has grownThe 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 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.

57%PARK VISITScontinue to

GROWMORE RAPIDLY(average growth

rate 4%)than the general POPULATION

(average growth rate 1.7%).

The majority

of people come to the regional park for

WALKING AND HIKING (92%), PICNICKING (77%),

and SWIMMING AND BEACH

ACTIVITIES (70%).

Since 2010

VISITATIONto the regional

park has INCREASED 22%.

In 2015 the regional park

received 668,000 VISITORS,

up 7% from the previous year.

22%


Did you know...Visitation to this area of the regional park has increased 22% since 2010Metro Vancouver forecasts an increase in population of 1 million people by 2040. Planning will address future increased useIn 2015 there were 25 days when the parking was over capacity compared to 11 days in 2010Capacity is especially an issue on summer weekends between Victoria Day and Labour DayThere are 188 parking stalls near the picnic

the bike lane

LimitationsHigh levels of use in this part of the regional park cause congestion at existing facilitiesExisting parking and picnic facilities are not meeting the current demands and access to the ocean is limitedTransit service to the regional park is limitedWhen the parking lot is over capacity, cars park in the cycling lane taking up infrastructure intended for alternative transportationGiven its First Nations history, the possibility

site. Archaeological assessments are required to be performed as part of detailed site planning.

OpportunitiesBelcarra south beaches are the only ones along the Belcarra shore line with favourable, sunny aspects and modest, accessible slopesThere is the potential to open additional water oriented trailsThere is the potential for interpretation of natural features and sensitive ecosystemsThe maintenance road could potentially provide public and emergency vehicle access in the future

Access and AmenitiesBelcarra Regional Park

P

P

0 20 50 m

N

SOUTH BEACH LEGEND

rock outcrop

springboard trail

admiralty point trail

beach

picnic lawn

water accesshiking trails

hiking/cycling trails

maintenance road - no public access

access road

picnic tables

picnic shelters

concession and washrooms

cabin - no current public access

existing amenity area

potential amenity area

BOLEBEACH

PICNIC AREA + WATERFRONT

Tum Tumay Whueton Dr.

Bedwell Bay Rd.

Midden Rd.


Bole House, circa 1980

The Bole House and CabinsBelcarra Regional Park

0 20 50 m

N

LEGENDcabin

belcarraport moody

1. Cabin 1 3. Cabin 3

5. Cabin 5 7. Cabin 7

2. Cabin 2

6. Cabin 6 8. Bole House

Bole Beach, circa 1935

character of south beach character of cabin trails

MAINBEACH

SOUTH BEACH

BOLE BEACH

Did you know...The responsibility for heritage is mandated by the Province to local governments through the Local Government ActCabin one, located in the Village of Belcarra, does not have a heritage designationThe 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 grantedThe 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 propertiesThe cabins and their surrounding landscapes are located on public land and are publicly owned

LimitationsThe mandate of Metro Vancouver’s regional parks system is to protect important natural areas and to provide opportunities for people to connect to natureWhere 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 conservationDepending on future uses, buildings may require structural, architectural and servicing upgrades; Current capital budgets do not include funding for required upgradesExclusive residential use is not considered a regional park service

OpportunitiesPublic 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 visitorsShelter for picnickingConcession for recreational equipment rentals;Concession for food services (snack bar, café, restaurant, teahouse)Caretaker useEvent space for weddings, parties, events, seminars;

rooms, program space for staff, park associations or park partners operating in one or more regional parksArtist studio or art galleryShort term overnight stays

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4. Cabin 4

Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.193 Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.188


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 forestThe 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 disturbanceSalmonberry, 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

LimitationsDisturbance of pond to be avoidedImpacts to existing vegetation are to be minimized Steep rocky slopes limit development opportunities in some locations

OpportunitiesWhere possible, park amenities can be placed on previously disturbed sitesPreviously developed trail network could be re-used requiring no additional disturbancePreviously impacted sites have slopes suitable for picnic areas and other amenities.

EnvironmentBelcarra Regional Park

beac

h

erosion co

ntro

l

rock

out

crop

bea

ch

rock

y he

adla

ndbea

ch

0 20 50 m

N

HYDRO CORRIDOR

pond

COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK FOREST

EELGRASS

immature growth, previously impacted forest

in various stages of succession

aquatic species habitat

SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION


Belcarra South Planning ProgramONLINE QUESTIONNAIREOPEN HOUSE INFORMATION PANELS

To participate, search “Belcarra South planning” at metrovancouver.org

APPENDI D

of 16

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.

colette

Text Box

APPENDIX F

of 16

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 long-

time 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

of 16

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).

of 16

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.

of 16

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.

of 16

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

of 16

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.

of 16

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.

of 16

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.

of 16

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

of 16

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

of 16

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?

of 16

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.

of 16

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,

of 16

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.

of 16

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.

belcarra south planning program engagement summary · thursday, july 16, 2016, south picnic site 19...

Documents