Beaconsfield Park Turf Field – Width Amendment
Motion 5 · Board Committee Meeting – March 30, 2026, March 30, 2026
Summary
- Amendment to the Beaconsfield Park concept plan motion, replacing the proposed 55-metre field width with a direction to staff to target a minimum width of 60 metres.
- Prompted by feedback from BC Soccer Association, BC Coastal Soccer League, Vancouver Youth Soccer Association, Italian Canadian Sports Federation, and Vancouver Athletic Football Club that 55 metres is too narrow for adult play and would make the field one of the narrowest in the Lower Mainland
- Staff confirmed 60 metres is achievable but would require redesigning or removing covered spectator seating and the perimeter circulation path, and would come at additional cost due to earthworks and retaining requirements; 64 metres is not possible due to a Metro Vancouver sanitary right-of-way to the south
- Staff noted that at the concept stage, a precise cost is not yet required for capital plan inclusion; detailed costing would come through the next phase
Vote
Transcript
28 segments
I'd like to move an amendment.
Take it away. It's been submitted in writing. Staff, could we just bring that up?
Do you want to just maybe introduce your amendment?
Yep. So I'm supportive of this. Like, we're way behind a number of fields. It's part of the field support strategy to convert this. So I think it's a really great project. We've heard... that 60 metres is a minimum width because we want to include adults. And the site would accommodate 60 metres, but be it with a different design. And so I want this to move forward. And, you know, staff have indicated tonight that it is possible when it comes back to us they'd have a shift in design to come back with that 60 metres. 64 is ideal, but we understand that there are some real-world constraints. And so that's what the amendment is. We want this to be for adults as well as kids.
Great. Questions? Commissioner Digby, go ahead. Oh, sorry, we'll need a seconder first. Okay, Commissioner Hare, thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Digby, your question.
Yeah, so I need to go back to staff through the chair, if we may, and if Staff would recommend who's the best person to answer this question, but the 65-meter field was chosen... Probably as a part of a multi multi parameter optimization that that was the best they could get plus stands In there and there's a community is offered to install those stands for us So it's not just as simple as changing to 60 meters. Although I did hear our Team say that 60 meter Might be possible So could, Madam Chair, could I ask through you, the staff, to answer that? How feasible is 60 meters and would you have to change other things to get there?
If staff could. Sure, I'll, thank you for the question. And so staff, my intelligent subject matter experts have confirmed that a 60 meter field is possible. It will likely come at the expense of some of those more balanced amenities that we were including with the smaller field, the perimeter pathway, the spectator seating. I respect the proposed amendment to the motion. We could potentially report back through a memo to reaffirm that it is possible. I also respect that my team has advised it could come at an additional cost. So reminding the commissioners that you asked us to report back on a feasibility study, including the cost, so that could be part of your deliberations for the upcoming capital plan. So we could... Through a follow-up memo, we provide some additional information.
I'm very anxious on timing for that because we are in a very tight window on capital plans. So I'm looking at the commissioners. Do they want to risk for five meters? Do they want to risk losing this altogether to find that other priorities have bumped Beaconsfield from the list?
I can answer that question. Was that directed at me?
Yes. So we've heard, like, this is coming back to us anyway. They have to come back with more detailed designs and costing. And we have until into July to do the capital planning. So this is also being supported by council. So the city council has already, like... is on board as well. So if there is an increase, Council will also be able to cover the cost of the increase in order to accommodate this. Doesn't that seem reasonable?
Am I still allowed to ask questions? it may sound reasonable but it depends how long it takes because they may approve it but I think we do need staff to tell us how quickly could they get a pricing on a 60 meter field and other accommodations that would have to make it's not just one small change
And I believe that was answered with staff will come back with an M.O.
Well, if it comes back in September, it's too late, Commissioner. So I think you need to know this answer, too.
Thank you. But I will also, to answer your question, the community have been... Staff has been invited to answer. The community have been waiting 15 years for this, and they want to get it right. So there's no point in rushing if all that work that they put 15 years into doesn't come in, meaning all the adults that want to use it as a way of building communities so people can play into their 60s, and we're going to take that away from them permanently just so we can rush for an election?
Commissioner, we're still here for the community.
You were coming up to answer a technical question?
Did staff want to provide any input on that? Sorry.
Chair, if I may, actually, what I would suggest, again, we're just in feasibility and concept designs. We won't know what this costs until we actually go out to procure it as well. So through the capital plan, we will be creating buckets of funding for things like park amenities, synthetic turf fields, of the like. We don't need to have the specificity, I would suggest, around a 64 or 60 or 55 at this point in time. It will result in potential tradeoffs downstream when we get into actual contract awards and project costing. But at this point, I would suggest this would be sufficient for staff to pursue the amendment and the direction from the board.
Commissioner Howard, questions, please.
My question just got answered. Okay. We can definitely have some flexibility with this.
Okay, I will pop you out of the queue. Thanks.
Commissioner Herr?
Thank you so much. Through the chair, if someone can answer, I noticed there's a field on the other side as well, on the bottom, and is it possible to put the soccer field... On what is it, southeast end of that area? Is that a possibility? Has it been looked at? Yeah, sure. Thank you.
Referring this back to staff. So we did look at that and highlighted that within the written report. So you could locate it on the southeast, which is a very productive grass field, but it would come at the impact of a loss of significant trees. and a likely need then to replace this gravel field we've been talking about with a grass field so we have no loss of grass fields, thereby increasing project costs and additional timelines for lights which don't exist there. So we would not recommend that, but it could work with additional cost and time.
Thank you for letting me know. Thank you.
Seeing no further questions on the amendment, we'll move to comments. So any commissioners have comments on the amendment before I call a vote? Any comments, amendments on this? No? Okay. Okay, I will call a vote on the amendment. All in favor of the text in red, please raise your hand.
That is carried unanimously. So the text in red will now become part of the main motion.
Okay, we'll come back to comments on the main motion. If commissioners have comments, please go ahead.
Commissioner Jensen. Oh, okay. Go ahead first.