July 2006 Visit of the Polish Consul to NI Polish Picnic in Belfast.
Belcarra South Planning Program Engagement Summary · Thursday, July 16, 2016, South Picnic Site 19...
Transcript of 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
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 2
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
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 3
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
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 4
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 REGIONAL PARK
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
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 5
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
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 6
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)
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 7
2.3 ENVIRONMENT
Q3 Part of Metro Vancouver’s mandate is to“Protect Natural Areas”. Which of the following would you support in regards to the environment?
estion foc sed on the mandate of etro anco ver egional arks in order to gain an nderstanding of the p blic s s pport for environmental protection environmental interpretation and ed cation and environmental restoration. he responses, ere over helmingly s pportive of all three options.
Individual comments from the feedback forms ranged from general comments on the environment and balancing the environment with historic elements, to addressing invasive species appropriately to the protection of the nat ral environment. here as interest in ensuring the protection of wildlife and trees in the park and ensuring that improvements ill not lead to degradation of the park. ne person s ggested limiting access if it maintained the natural quality of the park and that access to sensitive areas be managed rather than restricted.
Well placed, environmental, ed cational displays at the start of trails, ere seen as beneficial. ne person commented that interpreters o ld also be beneficial.
n mber of comments identified the historic val e of the cabins to the comm nity. Some see the tenants as assisting in maintaining the heritage of the cabin area.
iscellaneo s comments identified the need to clean p the geese droppings to make the grass more usable and better monitoring of the “crabbers” to control their waste and garbage. ne person e pressed concern over any consideration of sing the picnic area for night time se.
I Level of Support for Environmental Options (% per option)
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 8
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)
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 9
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.
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 10
2.5 THE BOLE HOUSE and CABINS
Q8 Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of determining the most appropriate uses for publicly owned structures, like the Bole House and the cabins, in Belcarra Regional Park. What do you think are the best public uses for these structures?
he ole o se and cabins are located along the edge of the coast line so th of the e isting picnic area. s part of the process looking into improvements for the so th picnic area and in light of the
ity of ort oody s eritage esignation yla of the cabins in , and placing ole o se on the eritage egister in , etro anco ver egional arks anted to gain insight into the potential f t re ses for the ole o se and cabins.
he greatest s pport for f t re ses as for preserving the historical b ildings ith strongly agreed and . some hat agreed. n aggregate, this represents . agreeing. he ne t set of s pported ses ere ed cation and interpretive f nctions . caretaker accommodation
. , artist, st dio and gallery space . , respectively.
Uses least supported were some of the potential revenue generating uses like recreational e ipment rental food services space for events and short term stays. While in previo s estions responders supported improvements for small picnic shelters, using the cabins as potential shelters for picnicking as not highly favo red.
I Level of Support for Public Uses (% per option)
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 11
he commentary from this estion foc sed on the follo ing aspects related to the ole ose and cabins.
· S pport for contin ed tenancy of the cabins appro imately comments
· S pport for the perceived caretaker and maintenance role of the tenants appro imately comments
· S pport for heritage preservation of the cabins appro imately comments ith some identifying support for retaining the tenants;
· S pport for the retention, preservation and re p rposing the ole o se appro imately comments
· S pport artist in residency st dio space ses appro imately comments
· S pport for the c lt ral heritage of the cabins and the comm nity appro imately comments
· ther ses respondents commented on short term rentals of the cabins irst ations ed cation and history ed cation and programming historical
interpretation camping and miscellaneo s .
While the majority of responders to the feedback forms s pport the preservation of the cabins and allowing the tenants to remain, there were several responders that were in favour of opening up the cabin area and beaches for public use and not having the cabins tenanted .
s one responder noted occ pation of the cabins is a sensitive iss e .
t sho ld be noted that hile the commentary favo red tenancy, it is etro anco ver s position that e cl sive residential se is not a regional park service.
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 12
2.6 PRIORITIES for the FUTURE
Q9 Please prioritize from 1 most important, to 6 least important, how funding on future improvements for this area of the park should be spent?
s part of the planning ork, it as determined that prioriti ing improvements as important for the public to comment on in relation to the future planning for the south picnic area. esponders ere asked to prioriti e their preferences for improvements from least important to most important. ositive responses ere achieved hen ranked or better. n analy ing the data, aggregated positive responses ith higher percentages achieved the highest priority.
Environmental restoration, interpretation, and protection, with an aggregated response of . , ere identified as the most important improvements to p t f nding to ards. he next two improvements - improving public access to existing forested land and beach areas at . and improving park facilities at . , ranked lo er than environmental improvements yet still aro nd importance. he improvement ith the least importance
as improving access for cycling at .
I Prioritization of Funding (% per improvement)
METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL PARKS | BELCARRA SOUTH PLANNING PROGRAM | AUGUST, 2016 | PAGE 13
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 REGIONAL PARK
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?
Additional Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Additional Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Does the busy nature of the facilities – trails, picnic shelters, picnic tables, washrooms, concession - in the study area impact your park experience? Please circle one. Yes No Additional Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CABINS AND THE BOLE HOUSE 8. Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of determining the most appropriate uses for publicly owned
structures, like the Bole House and the cabins, in Belcarra Regional Park. What do you think are the best public uses for these structures?
Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Shelters for picnicking ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Education and interpretive functions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Preserved historic buildings ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Locations for recreational equipment rental ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Food Services ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Caretaker location ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Weddings parties, seminars, and events ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Meeting space ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Artist studio or gallery ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Short term overnight stays ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Additional Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRIORITIES 9. Please prioritize from 1 least important, to 6 most important, how funding for future improvements for this
area of the park should be spent? Please circle one number per item. Item Priority No. (1 –6 )
Environmental restoration, interpretation and protection 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:
Belcarra South Planning Program
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.
Belcarra South Planning Program
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
BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK
Dock PicnicArea Parking
Lot
MAP INSET
7
1
1
Belcarra South Planning Program
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
Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.149
Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.32
Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.197
Forest & Fjord, 2013, p.197
Coast Salish potlatch, Burrard Inlet
Belcarra regional park midden site Belcarra regional park site artifacts
Belcarra South Planning Program
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
Belcarra South Planning Program
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%
Belcarra South Planning Program
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.
Belcarra South Planning Program
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
Belcarra South Planning Program
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 REGIONAL PARK
Belcarra South Planning ProgramONLINE QUESTIONNAIREOPEN HOUSE INFORMATION PANELS
To participate, search “Belcarra South planning” at metrovancouver.org
APPENDI D
Page 1 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.
Page 2 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
Page 3 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).
Page 4 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.
Page 5 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.
Page 6 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
Page 7 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.
Page 8 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.
Page 9 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.
Page 10 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
Page 11 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
Page 12 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?
Page 13 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.
Page 14 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,
Page 15 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.
Page 16 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.