← Park Board Meeting March 30, 2026
Okay, welcome. We will now convene the Park Board Committee meeting. May we have the roll call, please?
Commissioner Christensen is in the chair. Commissioner Bastiwanski is not online or in the room. Commissioner Digby.
Present.
Commissioner Hare. Present. Commissioner Howard.
Is online, but has not reported that she is attending the meeting right now.
Commissioner Jensen is not. I am right here.
Thank you so much.
Present to all those here. Thank you. And Commissioner Verdi is not online or in the room. Commissioner Howard, can you hear us?
Yes, I can see the screen. You can see the room? It looks like it.
Oh, wonderful.
And you're here for attendance, so you have quorum, Chair. Great, thank you. As Chair, I ask all commissioners attending virtually, please leave their cameras on unless you're absent from the meeting. If cameras aren't on, we'll be obliged to assume that you're not present at the meeting. Thank you very much.
I would like to acknowledge that our meeting is taking place on the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. We meet on this land respectfully and with honor to each other, the land and the communities we serve. I would invite you to join with me in committing to acts of reconciliation in our deliberations and in the decisions that we make. Before we move on to our first order of business, I do have a few procedural items to review. As our meetings are recorded and live web streamed, I would like to remind commissioners and presenters to speak clearly into their microphones. As well, there are cameras in the room, and at times they may capture those sitting in the gallery. We have a code of conduct that we ask all present to follow to ensure we maintain a respectful workplace. We do have registered speakers this evening. Note that speakers will be called up in the order the request was received. They will have five minutes to address the board unless the board votes otherwise. Comments must be related to the agenda item that commissioners will be voting on. The Park Board is committed to ensuring that anyone who participates in board meetings are treated fairly and respectfully. The language we all use in these meetings reflect respect for all. No form of discrimination is acceptable or will be tolerated. The creation of a safe and inclusive environment
is everyone's responsibility. Therefore, as chair, I will ask speakers to modify their speech if needed to ensure that respectful language is being used. Members of the board, I'd encourage you also to call a point of order if you feel that the language used is not respectful or on topic. Thank you.
Would somebody like to move a motion to reduce the speaking time from five minutes to three minutes? I see Commissioner Digby. Do we have a seconder for that?
Seeing none, oh, seconder? Nope, okay. Seeing none, no seconder, that motion. Oh, Commissioner Howard, online is seconded. We'll call a vote by a show of hands. So this is a vote to reduce the speaking time from five minutes to three minutes, given that we do have 18 registered speakers tonight, I believe. I'll call a vote by a show of hands. All in favor? I see Commissioner Hare, Commissioner Bessie-Vancey, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Howard, all opposed. Commissioner Jensen, that is carried.
So to clarify for everyone in the audience, we've reduced the speaking time from five minutes to three minutes. I understand that you may have a lot to say, but we do have 18 speakers and several other items to go through tonight. So we're trying to move efficiently tonight. So I appreciate everyone's understanding and the reduction of the speaking time tonight.
First up we have the approval of the minutes for the park board committee meeting held on March 9th and 10th any questions or comments I'll need a mover to approve the minutes a commissioner Jensen and a seconder commissioner hair Call vote by a show of hands to approve the minutes all in favor That carries unanimously Thank You commissioners If folks online could just make sure that you're either muted or you don't have the stream running in the background
Do any commissioners have announcements to note? Commissioner Digby. One sec. There you go.
over to those of you who observe that holiday and Easter's Good Friday arrives on Friday this week coming this Friday and Easter Sunday and Easter Monday and to those of you who celebrate Easter happy Easter to you. Thank you very much. Any other announcements from commissioners?
Moving on.
Does the clerk have any correspondence of note? Yes, the following is a summary of correspondence sent to Commissioners related to the topics on the Park Board meeting agendas. This report only reflects communications received between March 23rd and March 30th, 2026, up until 3 p.m., sent in via the Park Board Commissioner's, contact the Park Board Commissioner's web form, and all communications sent through these means have been shared with the commissioners. Regarding the Beacons Field Park Synthetic Turf Field Concept Plan, we received 16 letters of opposition. And regarding Bard on the Beach Burrard Civic Marina Temporary Storage Facility leased of space, we received two letters of opposition. And for the 2026 outdoor pools operation plan update, we received four letters of support. That's all. Thank you. Thank you very much.
As we have no registered speakers for item four, Vancouver Aquarium Development Permit, would commissioners like to adopt this item on consent? So anyone who does not want to adopt it on consent, if you could just... Okay, we'll need a mover of the recommendation Commissioner Jensen a seconder Commissioner Digby I'll call a vote by a show of hands all in favor I See oh that carries unanimously Thank You commissioners So that is item for finished uninvested
Okay, our first staff report this evening is titled Columbia Park Renewal Concept Plan. This will be introduced by Director Mack of Planning and Park Development.
Good evening, Commissioners. I'd like to introduce the project team. I'll start with Park Board staff stepping up to the table. Associate Director Ian Stewart, Landscape Architect Sophie McNeil, who will present tonight, and supported... In the audience by Ben Mulhall, in the brown jacket and blue shirt in the audience, our senior project manager and team lead. Also, importantly, I want to recognize our colleagues and partners in this project. The general manager of the city engineering department, Lon LeClaire, is in the audience, as is Amy Sidwell, director, urban watersheds, sewers, and drainage. They'll be able to respond directly to any questions you have for the engineering aspects of the project. And we have Rob Lukes, associate director of strategy and planning for green infrastructure, part of... Director Sidwell's team on the line as well. So I'll do a brief introduction and then hand the floor over to our park board staff to present. The proposed concept plan before you this evening is a collaboration with the city's engineering department. This concept for the future of Columbia Park, including an underground stormwater detention tank, has been in the making for several years and had been previously supported by board directions and policies as well as community engagement. It proposes necessary infrastructure to support not only rainwater management and the prevention of downstream flooding in the catchment area, but importantly also to reimagine a park within the Canby Corridor plan area, a development area projected to accommodate 40,000 new residents over time. That's a lot of people pressure coming to this former suburban neighbourhood park.
Staff are seeking your approval this evening of the concept plan and forward-looking agreements with the engineering department. We're also seeking your advocacy for funding the project in the upcoming 2027 to 2030 capital plan. Thank you. And Director Stewart and landscape architect, Sophie McNeil, take it away. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Sophie McNeil. I'm a landscape architect and the park development project manager for the Columbia Park Renewal Project. I'm pleased to be here this evening on behalf of the entire project team to present this project, which is the result of a close collaboration between Park Board and Engineering Services and reflects a coordinated cross-departmental approach to delivering much-needed park renewals and critical infrastructure in a way that maximizes public benefits. Next slide. Does that work? Oh, I can do it. Great. Thank you. Is it this one? OK. So this presentation will include an overview of the public engagement process and the proposed concept plan, including the integration of an underground stormwater detention tank that will help prevent downstream flooding. This information is being presented in order to support the board in considering a decision on that proposed concept plan. And to further support that decision and the associated recommendations, in this presentation we'll also be providing an overview of the project's background, policy context, and funding considerations.
As illustrated in the timeline at the bottom of this slide, you can see that the project has involved extensive coordination, engagement, and analysis. and has now reached a key milestone where a board decision is required to advance the project to detailed design and construction and to allow for integrated and coordinated design work to continue with city engineering.
So I'll begin with some brief context and background to explain the importance of this project at this particular location and at this particular time. Columbia Park is located in the Oak Ridge local area I'm just east of Cambie Street and the Oak Ridge development and just south of 41st Ave within the neighborhood that's experiencing significant growth and change as part of the broader Cambie corridor and also transit-oriented development. This project was originally initiated as part of the Alberta Street Blue-Green System and Columbia Park Renewal Project to address several interconnected priorities, including population growth and densification, sewer separation and infrastructure capacity, climate resiliency, park services, and connectivity. Together with Alberta Street, this project represents an early step towards the van play vision of Little Mountain to Big River and supports a more connected system of parks and open spaces throughout our city. Finally the Columbia Park renewal is not only guided by specific directives within van play and one water It also aligns with many other park board and city strategies including the urban forest strategy sports field strategy Rain City strategy and people's parks and dogs So now with that context this slide shows the proposed Columbia Park concept plan, which has been designed to address those interconnected and overlapping complex priorities. Some key features we wanted to highlight in this plan includes along the westernmost edge of it is the blue-green edge, which integrates rainwater management and habitat in the park, while also linking it to the broader Alberta Street Greenway and citywide habitat corridor. There is also a synthetic turf sports field that's located above an underground stormwater detention tank. This amenity was chosen for compatibility with the required infrastructure and to support year-round recreation in a high-density context. There will also be a new larger inclusive playground that includes nature play elements. plazas and loop pathways to support accessibility, recreation, and social connection, a washroom building that will replace the existing Portland loo, green open space for informal socializing and recreating, and a fenced dog off-leash area. The extents of phase one that you can see on the plan were based in part
on which existing park elements will be impacted by construction of the detention tank, which was detailed in Appendix B of the report, and also along with careful consideration of prioritized park servicing priorities. So for example, the current playground is located where the underground infrastructure will be installed and its replacement aligns with the park's broader playground renewal priorities. making it a clear priority for this initial phase of work. So this next slide provides an overview of the engagement. As mentioned, engagement played a really important role in shaping the concept plan. It was carried out over three rounds beginning in 2021 as part of the broader work with Alberta Street Blue-Green System. Activities included a Shape Your City page and surveys, four public information sessions, on-site signage, and meetings with interested parties, including the Vancouver Field Sports Federation. This slide shows three photos from the 2024 public engagement that happened on-site when we were sharing the draft of this concept plan that you saw tonight. Highlights from what we heard at that engagement included strong excitement for a new larger playground with shade, a fenced OLA and green open space. There was some mixed feedback on fence synthetic turf with some preference for natural lawn, but overall there was support for the recommended concept.
For financial considerations, the total estimated project costs for Columbia Park concept phase one is 19 million, to be cost shared with engineering. This amount does include construction costs and associated soft costs like project management and consulting fees, permitting and contingencies. For funding, funding for phase one includes an engineering contribution that is up to 50% cost share for this first phase of park renewal to compensate for the use of parkland and replacement of existing impacted features for an underground stormwater detention tank.
For the park board contribution of this initial phase, it will require a funding allocation of approximately $9.7 million in the 2027 to 2030 capital plan to advance detailed design and construction pending board decision. The estimated annual operating impact to the capital budget is about $44 million. $440,000, including $60,000 for synthetic turf operations.
And before we move into the recommendations, we just want to briefly include a couple of slides to provide some additional context about why a synthetic turf field, which is a significant part of the project costs, was recommended for this project.
We recognize this is a topic that is a point of interest for the community, and it's important to understand the context and broad recreational planning and its proposed location above an underground attention tank in a densifying area. While the upfront capital cost is higher than a natural turf field, synthetic turf supports significantly more use, helping the park deliver year-round recreation that's the equivalent of four natural turf sports field. In high-density areas like Oak Ridge, natural turf is particularly challenging to maintain. It requires rest and recovery periods that are difficult to enforce. And strategies like fencing often leads to unintended uses, such as dogs, and making the limiting overuse not very effective. The sports field strategy details more information about synthetic turf. And it also specifically recommends this surface when subsurface infrastructure, such as a detention tank, is required. One of the key reasons for that is that it reduces the risk of service disruptions and ensures a reliable plain surface.
This next slide just shows a breakdown of that high-level comparison between a natural and synthetic turf field in terms of the service levels, cost considerations, operations and maintenance, and further notes on the compatibility of it with an underground tank. But we're not going to go into those in details. We just wanted to include it here for reference and a reminder of the rationale behind the recommendation for a synthetic turf field in this location.
So finally, that brings us to the recommendations included in the report for decision tonight.
They are A, that the Vancouver Park Board approve the concept plan for the renewal of Columbia Park as described in this report and shown in the appendices. B, that the Vancouver Park Board approve of the use of a portion of Columbia Park for an underground city stormwater detention tank managed by the city's engineering department. And C, that the Vancouver Park Board authorize the general manager of parks and recreation and the City's Engineering Services General Manager to finalize and execute funding and land use agreements for the use of Columbia Park by the Engineering Department for a stormwater detention tank to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks and Recreation.
So that includes the presentation. We welcome any questions.
Thank you so much.
Commissioners, any questions for staff?
Mr. DP uh Yes, so I am NOT a fan of synthetic turf at all Do you happen to know is how long would it sin turf last how many years till it has to get replaced?
Do you happen to know that Yeah, we would we typically Require field replacement after 10 to 15 years That's the general. Yeah
Okay, and is there any way that that stuff is ever recycled or does it just go into the dump? As far as we know, do you have to know if they improve techniques of recycling that at all or is it just garbage?
Commissioner, we're always looking into ways to be more sustainable as an organization. At this time, that would be streamed to the landfill. I think it's also important to balance the inputs that are required for natural turf versus synthetic turf.
The inputs being that natural turf also requires, it's got to be mowed every 10 days, every 5 to 10 days.
That's right, those maintenance inputs, irrigation, and fertilization.
Fertilization, and that's high carbon as well? Okay, and so then there's the question of crumb, the crumb infill, and there's different kinds of infill. I understand there's different kinds, and we're going to see it in the next motion where we're talking the same thing at Beaconsfield. It's possible to use this organic infill, is it? I was reading it was like walnut, crushed walnut shells. Is that a reasonable cost? Like, could that be done at a reasonable cost?
Commissioner, at this time, the Park Board has specified for any of our renewals or new synthetic turf fields to use an inert EPDM material. We have researched many of the different info materials as part of the sports field strategy. At this time, in our climate, in the Pacific Northwest, We know that those organic-derived materials, such as walnut shells and coconut-based small particles, they do not do well in our climate. We're certainly open to continuing to work with suppliers and benchmark with other municipalities to see if that material does perform. But at this time, we've done that extensive work to conclude that EPDM is the safest material. We certainly will not use any crumb rubber because of its toxic effects.
Okay, very aware of that. So then one last question is, so this crumb infill, I'm worried it's going to flow into the streams. I mean, this is a very important blue-green waterway, and what's the quality of technology that can prevent the crumb rubber from washing off the field and into these very important streams that you want to put in?
Yeah, that's very important to us as an organization. And as you know, we have environmental staff in-house. We will not be doing anything with our new construction that leads to the introduction of that material into waterways. So we're taking a number of measures. That will include storm scepters, collection devices with filters on them.
We will not be removing the snow off these fields. That's a major contributor to migration of that material. And we'll have mesh, again, around the perimeter. We'll have low curbs to contain that material. So any of these new facilities will be built with all best practices to reduce that migration.
Commissioner here.
Thank you for the information. Just a quick question. The company that you're sourcing the turf field from is a Canadian or is it being sourced from abroad? Do you know yet?
We do have specific regulations in our specifications around where that material is sourced and our suppliers need to provide that. I don't have that at my fingertips tonight, Commissioner, but we can provide that as a follow-up.
Commissioner Bastavansky.
Thank you for this interesting concept plan. My question is around the type of, about the size of the field. So what are the dimensions and what sports would be able to use that space?
Yeah, thank you for the question. So currently the concept design field size we're assuming will be 110 metres by 70 meters, which can accommodate the typical 100 meter by 64 meter standard playing field with a safety buffer. But we did want to note that in the concept design, you can see that a larger area is actually fenced beyond that field area. And that is to include additional fenced in space for warm up areas, storage, player benches, and to accommodate sort of flexibility in detail design with the appropriate sports field sizes.
Okay. And I think that space is currently quite heavily used by the Ultimate group. And I'm wondering, will they be able to use that field?
Do you want to? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes.
Okay. And I know with a number of our new fields and renewals, we've incorporated long pile and a shock pad to reduce the risk of injury to players and reducing the risk of concussion. Is that going to be the case on this field as well?
Do you have a? Yes.
Okay, thank you. And now this is partly paid for by engineering, but can you help me understand, is this project coming as a trade-off from doing Oak Park gravel field conversion? Because in the sports field strategy, Oak Park was ahead of Columbia. And so are we making a trade-off here?
Commissioner, I don't know that we would consider this a trade-off. This is an opportunity that we've partnered with engineering on, and it does prioritize Columbia. I know that we also have significant density coming to this neighborhood, so I think we would see it more as an opportunity than a trade-off.
Yes, thank you. My last question is, so we are losing some sports fields. So right now you've got diamonds and a grass field. Which groups are being displaced and how are they being accommodated?
So at this time, the displaced users would primarily be the ball players, softball, baseball. And we do intend to work closely with those groups as part of the allocation policy work to determine how we can accommodate them elsewhere.
Yes. Okay. Thank you.
I'm just going to ask a couple questions about the detention tank. What's the lifespan of a tank like this?
I will ask our engineering staff that we have us here tonight to support us with that question. Thanks.
Is it okay? Wait, wait, wait. Just a second. Hold on. We've got to do some mic situations. I think he wants to answer online.
I'm just going to ask Rob Lukes to answer that question. Okay. He's online. Hello. Rob Lukes, I'm the Associate Director for Green Infrastructure and Engineering Services.
And these detention storage systems are designed to be around the same lifespan of the sewer system itself. So about 100 year lifespan.
And how much maintenance is typically required on a tank like this? And I guess the quality of that is what kind of off, like how often would the turf need to be taken offline and how long would it be offline for maintenance on the tank?
I don't expect the turf system to ever be taken offline to maintain the tank. The access points would be off the field. And it also will include a manufactured treatment device. So there'll be an upstream system that is treating water before it goes into the detention tank. So that would be capturing a majority of the sediment before it gets into the tank. So that reduces the maintenance. within the storage underneath the fields. So the manufactured treatment device is more like the oversized manhole that could be on the edge of the park or even within the street.
Okay, I guess my last question is about, so the downstream system, it flows into what is right now a combined sewer. And the report was talking about that Metro Vancouver has limitations in their system and they don't have plans to upgrade their trunk sewer. But my understanding is that Metro Vancouver has a goal of eliminating combined sewer overflows by 2050. So when Metro Vancouver does upgrade that and the combined sewer gets separated, what's the plan for this detention tank at that point, which I assume would be before 2050?
So yeah, the detention tank, because it has a long lifespan, we can still use it to accommodate additional rainwater that we expect with climate change. We do continually work with Metro Vancouver on their infrastructure planning and capital planning. And so right now we're working with them on our healthy waters plan, which is helping prioritize where they do their sewer separation around the city on their trunks. And so this particular trunk is lower on their priority list. And so we're not sure of the exact timing. It's not within their
10-year plan right now, so they're working on other priorities. And the future sizing of these sewers, would they take into account the detention system or not take into account that?
We would be telling them the flows that we would anticipate coming from our system so that they would be taking that into account.
Oh, and I will say, sorry, just one thing. Because the system is for stormwater, It shouldn't go into kind of their system. They just want to be managing a sanitary system. Once they separate their system, we anticipate that those drainage assets will actually end up belonging to the city of Vancouver at some point.
And will the drainage, the storm side of the city system, that'll be sized to account for the fact that there's a detention tank there? Yes. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. I have a number of questions in regards to engagement, but prior to that, I just wanted to know if the, in regards to what type of field this will be, will this field meet our direction six of local First Nations and be lined for Indigenous sport as well?
Thank you, Commissioner. We have submitted a referral on this project. We have submitted an update, and pending your decision tonight, we'll submit another update to the host nations, and that is the opportunity for the host nations to express what their expectations are for this project.
Okay, wonderful. Thank you. In regards to engagement, this is, as we say with turf field, we're doing the work of four grass fields. Does this neighbourhood, will this neighbourhood be able to support the increase in potential car traffic and parking that will occur with the additional users coming to this space? And has the neighbourhood been consulted in regards to that?
Commissioner, through our engagement, we typically don't ask specific questions or speak to those. We are aware of potential impacts with this, but at the time we did receive strong support for the improvements to this park. We also know that this is a very... changing neighborhoods. So the single family, you know, type of typology of housing you see there will look quite different. And there are already some towers that have been constructed within the last year or so. So we are aware that there will be initial peak periods of vehicle traffic. It's also important to note that we're in a major transit oriented development center. So we expect many people will be coming to this field using public transit as well.
okay um in regards to the um engagement uh the addition of sports lighting uh what was the community response to um the potential of having sports field lighting up to 10 p.m um you know a street across from their home was there any specific feedback you can share
There was not specific feedback, Commissioner. We'll also be going through a development permit process where the community will also have an opportunity to provide additional feedback.
Okay. And finally, are there any plans or do you foresee any sort of changes to the parking regulations in that neighbourhood? which currently are unmarked to either having permit-only parking or going to timed parking, that would limit the access to those streets to those that are currently residing in that neighbourhood.
Commissioner, it would be difficult to speculate on the future parking configuration, but should that community find that things were not meeting their expectations, they would have that ability. to connect with the City of Vancouver and potentially have parking regulations changed. We've got one addition in behind. Yes, Lon LeClair, General Manager of Engineering Services. Yeah, we're always adjusting parking regulations on the street actively when streets come under pressure. So when we start to see streets that are having excessive demand, then we bring in the regulations, and those are done in consultation with the adjacent businesses, users, and residents.
Can I ask one follow-up, if I ask the Chair? Thank you. The decision today will be approved by this board or not. But if it is approved and changes are occurring to that neighbourhood and parking, that does not come back to this board. Am I correct?
With respect to our on-street management, it's actually delegated to the city engineer. So all the changes that occur on streets related to regulation is very responsive. Changes, you know, every year. So it's kind of an ongoing commitment to kind of serve residents and businesses and adjacent users as best as we can.
Okay, thank you so much.
Are you finished? I'm done.
Thank you so much.
I just had a question. You mentioned that this was going to require an official development permit that would have community feedback at this time. It seemed from the report that the timelines were quite tight. When would you sort of expect that the public would be providing input into this?
Because we're changing the use of this field and erecting high-mass lighting, that typically does trigger development permits. So next steps will be working with our colleagues in engineering to put a scope of work out to public. And at that same concurrently, we'll be working with the Planning and Development Services Department on this development permit. Okay. So it could happen quite quickly.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions from commissioners? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation today. Appreciate it.
So we have only one speaker for this item right now. One of our speakers withdrew. We have Darren Sherbet by phone. Darren.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Great. You'll have three minutes if you could just state your name, who you're representing, and your position on the matter. You'll have three minutes. I'll let you know when your time's up. Thank you.
Thanks. I can be brief on this one. Darren Sherbot, volunteer with the Vancouver Youth Soccer Association. We represent over 7,000 kids and about 12,000 parents in Vancouver. Any initiative that the park board is going to advance that's going to provide an artificial turf field with lighting is well overdue, and you have your unanimous support from this user group. Questions about the field size and whether it has shock pads and multiple linings to support other groups were answered previously, so that's encouraging. Well, it'll be both a multi-use long pile turf field with shock pads, etc. I want to make one note, though, on the number of hours and the difference between the grass fields and an artificial turf field is that you need to also look at the ratio of inventories that you have available in the summer during the winter. The AT fields with lights in the winter provide value when you can use them on dark, rainy nights. And in the summer, we have an abundance of grass fields that we can look on. So in your analysis of hours, you should also consider the fact that there is an abundance of fields that we can use in the spring and the summer, and those fields are effectively not available as grass fields for those winter times, which is most critical for almost eight months of the year. Thanks. That's all from me.
Great. Thank you. That was very short. Do any commissioners have clarification questions?
Thank you very much for calling in today, Darren.
You're welcome.
So that brings us to the end of our speakers. Would somebody like to move the recommendation to see Commissioner Jensen? Seconder, Commissioner Bastiwanski. We'll now discuss the recommendation. Commissioners, if you have comments, go ahead and cue in.
Anyone want to comment? Thank you. Commissioner Bastiwanski.
Yeah, I think it's wonderful that we've been able to find a way to share the cost between city and park, solving an engineering problem, an environmental problem, and a capacity issue with sports fields. You know, as the speaker just described, sometimes in winter, like we can't use grass fields, even if it has lights on, like it rains in Vancouver. I don't want to state the obvious, but that happens and the grass gets wet. And so turf field is really great for a whole variety of sports. We need to keep people active and outdoors. And it is a really wonderful way for people to build community and make friends at the darkest time of year. Those that have like those hobbies that run around outside in the wet and in the dark and in the cold, and they're doing it with friends. You know, as an outside observer, you might wonder why would they be wet and cold and happy. But it is a really important part of life in Vancouver. So I think, like, the board, like, I'm going to support this. I think the board should get behind this. Any opportunity to create a space where people can connect and make those friends is a massive bonus. And we're way behind on the number of fields. I think it's wonderful that we're doing it with long pile on the shock pad. The shock pad is really a way of like improving safety for those users. And I am really glad to see that those are being used across all our fields because we want people outside. So I'm going to support this. I think it's a great way for city and park to get together and work to something. And I thank staff for bringing this to us. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Commissioner Digby.
Yeah, well, as I said, so I am obviously reluctant about the sin turf aspect of this. We know the environmental cost of synthetic turf. We know that it gets really hot during summer days and in a way that grass fields do not because they're always humid and evaporating water from them. So, you know, I'm thinking about... voting against. But then this is part of the blue-green infrastructure that the city has to put in place to manage increased rainfall across the city in the coming years. And I see this fabulous blue-green edge running down the western side, which really brings opportunities for real kind of biodiversity in there and various plantings and various engagement with plants and shrubs along there that can be really meaningful to people that live in these high density neighborhoods. Well, given that, and plus the phase two of the project, which will be happening later, really does keep the green field space. So, again, I'm stuck in one of those tough decisions. Would I vote against this overall? I guess the answer is no. I can live with another centre for the valuable reasons my colleague suggested, Commissioner Bazduvansky, and so I will be supporting this because of its important role in the blue-green infrastructure of the city.
Commissioner Howard, online.
Fine. Thank you. Yes, I will be supporting this park and field. This is a wonderful project. And we just don't have enough of those in Vancouver. We need to build more of them and we need to build them faster. These sports have been proven to be the best way to get people. away from their screen, especially the kids, and into good health. So I'm 100% behind this project.
Thank you. I too am going to be supporting this. I'm a big supporter of sport and activation within our community. And so the initial concern I have is making sure that community is engaged. And I know staff do a very thoughtful job in that engagement. I actually visited... during that engagement at Columbia Park and met with not only staff but with residents and had a chance to hear how they felt about this new opportunity happening in their backyard. It is a very robust plan that is coming in two phases and again you know I would have idealized a no tank and natural grass field and you know, looking at Oak Park investment, but with the tank, there needs to be this investment in this turf field. But, you know, I think that in the end, you know, that is a rapidly changing neighbourhood, and I think that the neighbourhood will grow appropriately around this field as a destination park. And, you know, the phase two, you know, is very inclusive of so many great opportunities. And again, echoing Commissioner Digby, I really appreciate the rainwater and the green zone. Anytime you're walking past those in our growing city, you start to see and you appreciate what they bring to the neighbourhood. So very excited to support this tonight.
Commissioner Herr, do you have any comments? Okay, great. I appreciate the Commissioner's comments on this, and I do like the addition of new playing fields or inventory. I always like to see parks being renewed, but I do have some issues with this project for a couple reasons. The primary one, this is a significant encumbrance on our parkland. I appreciate that we do need this as a detention tank based on increased development pressures and downstream limitations. But I take issue with the fact that we're locking in this tank in our future piping considerations that this tank will always be here. This means that this tank is going to be on our land for over 100 years, and potentially we would have to replace it with a new tank in 100 years because the downstream infrastructure is going to be designed with this tank in mind. So for the very long future of the city of Vancouver... We are going to be limited in what we can do in this parkland. I think we all know how critical our parkland is, and especially in these dense neighborhoods, that we aren't going to get more parkland. So I think it's concerning that we're limiting to what we can do on our parkland by putting these engineering structures on them. I do hope that staff will reconsider redesigning the piping downstream so that we could eventually have the option of removing this tank in the future so that we aren't encumbered in the future of what we want to do on our parkland. I know that's an increased cost to consider that, but I do think we need to value our green space in that way. I also sort of take issue with the cost that we're painting this as a cost savings to the park board That you know somehow we're getting extra bonus infrastructure Because it's being split between the city and the park board ultimately all this money is coming from the same source It's the taxpayer money and really I think we should be asking why we need to give up our land for a hundred years to get some basic park improvements. I think we should be able to get park improvements without having to give up our land for that. I also have a little bit of concerns about the engagement, and I hope that there'll be some further engagement on this. The phase two engagement never really mentioned explicitly synthetic turf. A lot of the engagement that I read was people looking for green natural space. and sort of, yeah, lots of grass and green space. And I think that synthetic turf isn't necessarily the best interpretation of that. And I think we're pushing this synthetic turf in a non-ideal location just because of this tank that we need to put in, which I've already talked about having issues with. And finally, I think the phased approach has really pushed off some of the other amenities, like the dog park is not in phase one. I would have liked to see that happen concurrently with this so that we can do the whole park and all the amenities together. So ultimately, I would like to support this, but I do have serious concerns about the impact on the long term of our park here. And I know that this is a very important piece of land for this community, and I think we should be having a long term picture. of how we're using our land. So unfortunately, I won't be able to support this tonight.
So seeing no further comments from commissioners, I'll call a vote by a show of hands. All in favor? I see Commissioner Bastiowanski, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Heron, Commissioner Howard. All opposed? Commissioner Christensen. So that does carry. Thank you, everyone.
Okay. We are going to move on to our second item. I'll let staff do a little shuffle before. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff, all for coming out. Engineering team.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND REPORT, WHICH IS TITLED BEACON'S FIELD PARK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD CONCEPT PLAN. THIS WILL BE INTRODUCED BY DIRECTOR MACK AGAIN.
THANK YOU. WE'LL REINTRODUCE THE TEAM, INCLUDING A NEW PARTICIPANT FROM THE Planning and Park Development Group. So we have Associate Director Ian Stewart stepping up to the table again, and beside him, Jason McMillan, our landscape architect on the file, supported in the background by Ben Mulhall in the audience again. Just a few words, and I'll hand it over for the presentation. In July of 2025, less than a year ago, the Park Board directed staff to prepare a feasibility study and funding framework for a new synthetic turf field at Beaconsfield Park in order to inform the 2027 to 2030 capital plan. This request was actually preceded by several initiatives over several years prior, starting as early as 2009, and again on a few occasions, and finally in 2024, it was identified as a key initiative capital project in your approved sport field strategy. We've already started discussions this evening about synthetic turf field benefits, but they do come with their challenges as well, and the team will provide you with some inputs and the results of the feasibility study. Thank you.
Thank you, Director Mack. As Tina mentioned, my name is Jason McMillan. I'm a landscape architect with the park development team, and I'll be presenting on the Beaconsfield Park synthetic turf field concept plan. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide a summary of information on the proposed project, which spans several years, as Tina mentioned, to share findings from the recent feasibility study that indicates that a regulation-sized synthetic turf soccer field is possible, and to seek a board decision on the proposed concept plan to advance the project to detailed design.
To provide context, Beaconsfield Park is a 4.5-hectare permanent park located in the Renfrew-Collingwood neighborhood. The neighbourhood's population has grown steadily over time and is currently 17% denser than the City of Vancouver's average and is anticipated to increase by 30% by 2050. This high pace of growth highlights the importance of providing ongoing park upgrades and improvements to keep up with growth and needs. Park adjacencies include single and multiplex residences, a seniors care facility, the Italian Cultural Centre and a drainage tributary, Tistol Creek. The park currently includes a Class A grass soccer field, two ball diamonds, a field house building, a playground, the 215-plus Memorial Garden and Community Garden, a constructed wetland, and an all-weather gravel field in the northwest corner.
The gravel field within Beaconsfield Park has been considered a potential location for a synthetic turf field since 2009 when it was endorsed on a short list of potential sites. In 2018, further technical review and public process was completed, including an open house for Beaconsfield Park that shared a 55-meter-wide preliminary field design that received a majority of support. In 2024, the Vancouver Sport Field Strategy was unanimously approved and included three rounds of public engagement. The third round gathered feedback specific to Big Move 2, which is to convert, select all weathered gravel fields to synthetic turf fields, including Beacons Field.
Survey information was reached from 580 total respondents, 86% of which indicated overall support, and 12 out of 15 user groups indicated they strongly support the Big Move. Signage was posted within Beaconsfield Park, and site-specific feedback showed positive comments expressing excitement about the location, and noted conversion here would help to more evenly distribute fields across the city. Ultimately, Beaconsfield was identified third in the Sport Field Strategy's approved sequence and plan, following other planned conversions at Oak Park and Killarney Park. On July 7, 2025, the Board approved a motion to accelerate the Beaconsfield project. The motion directs staff to prioritize the all-weather field upgrade for inclusion in the 2027-2030 capital plan, work with local interested parties and partner groups to determine scope and potential cost-sharing contributions, and prepare a feasibility study and funding framework to inform the capital plan. The board motion was further supported by a Vancouver City Council motion in September 2025 giving the same direction. Following this direction, staff have been working with potential partner groups to assess possible cost-sharing contributions for the project, and key stakeholders have expressed interest in providing partnership funding for a designated feature, such as a covered spectator seating area, to be confirmed through ongoing discussion during detailed design subject to fundraising and agreements.
Before reviewing findings from the feasibility study, it's worth quickly touching on the comparison of synthetic turf to natural turf, thoroughly documenting the support field strategy. You note this table is the same as the one included in the Columbia presentation earlier this evening, and while I won't dig into the specific data, the intention is to highlight a key benefit of synthetic turf fields, which is the increased service level provision that also balances cost and operations in a city where growth and demand continue to increase.
Other key considerations include cost comparing, where upfront costs for synthetic are higher, but they also provide more ability for revenue and cost recovery. Park provision, where synthetic turf fields accommodate more use on a single field, freeing up space for other park uses. Growth areas where protection of natural turf from overuse in high-density areas is difficult. And the Sport Field Strategy Environmental and Human Health Report provides further comparison between the field types, including recommendations on appropriate infill materials and migration mitigation measures, all of which have been included in the proposed concept.
Shifting focus back to Beacons Field. Excuse me.
Following board direction, staff engaged a consultancy experience in sport field development and environmental management to form a feasibility study. The study concluded that converting the Northwest all-weather field to synthetic turf is feasible with the following considerations. Site fit. The all-weather field is limited by property lines to the north and west, the wetland to the east, and a Metro Vancouver sanitary right-of-way to the south, restricting the developable footprint.
The current proposed field size is 55-meter width by 100-meter length, which considers the current primary users, which are youth and amateur groups, balances the site constraints with desired amenities... and falls within the standard full-size range per International Football Association, or IFAB, laws. IFAB sets the laws or rules of the game for world football, which clearly state that a full-size soccer field may legally range in size with a minimum width down to 45 meters. Some user groups have expressed interest in a wider field, which may be possible in the Northwest, but would impact spectator seating capacity and layout? Circulation to and around the field, and we'll add project costs due to additional earthworks and retaining requirements. While the sport field strategy identifies a preferable minimum soccer field size of 64 meters by 100, as this meets the minimum FIFA standards for international high-level matches, a 55-meter width is explicitly permitted under the laws of the game. and are widely recognized by global and regional governing bodies as appropriate solution where site constraints limit the footprint. Further to this, narrow field width has several benefits. For youth players, the current primary user allows for more touches, quicker decision-making, and improved tactile learning. For recreational users, a narrow field reduces strain and requires less stamina to enjoy play. Flexibility and size allow more field in the system within constraint city spaces. The study also reviewed alternative locations within the park where 64-meter width could be accommodated. While dimensionally feasible in the southwest field, this location would displace many existing permitted user groups, require the removal of several mature trees, and increase impacts to the overall site. To balance these user group needs, this option would likely require that the northwest gravel field be upgraded to natural turf and comply with Rain City's stormwater policy, substantially increasing overall project costs in the range of up to $3 million. It is also worth noting that user group preference is for the northwest corner. Quickly, at ground conditions, the study found high groundwater and limited infiltration capacity. As a result, drainage solutions such as modular underground systems are required to mitigate challenges resulting in added costs. Since the proposed field location sits directly adjacent to the new constructed wetland and drainage tributary to the Still Creek watershed, it's critical that potential environmental impacts are thoughtfully considered and addressed where required. One of the concerns is the potential chemical leachate from info projects used for some synthetic turf fields, particularly 6-PPD quinone and its known negative effects on certain species of fish. The project addresses the concern by utilizing an alternative info product, EPDM, instead of tire-derived crumb rubber, a known source of 6-PPD quinone. Further to this, the park board has moved away from using crumb rubber on any new or renewed synthetic turf field projects system-wide. Other physical interventions to prevent infill mitigation are described in the detail in the next slide. Preliminary archaeological review identified the park as a low-risk site, and staff have submitted referrals to the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations.
The Musqueam Environmental Stewardship Department has reached out, identifying their concerns, notably 6PPD Queenon, which has been addressed, and park board staff are in ongoing communications with Musqueam staff.
following the feasibility study it was determined that proceeding with a concept plan would be reasonable considering strong alignment with this unanimously supported approved sport field strategy policy multiple prior engagements that indicated positive support for the project the largely prescribed design footprint and the nature of the board motion to accelerate the project while concept approval is requested this evening staff are committed to continuing to work through details with interested parties in the next phase of the project the concept plan shown here includes a 100-meter length by 55-meter full-size synthetic turf soccer field with two 55-meter by 47-meter mini soccer fields, plus lines to accommodate another sport. Other amenities include sport field lighting, goal storage areas, covered player benches, a pathway to the existing field house, and a spectator area that's subject to partner funding. The new field will replace the underutilized all-weather gravel field, increasing capacity to meet demands for year-round high-quality playing surfaces. This field would also complement the nearby VanTech turf field offering synergies for use.
While this increased use can affect nearby neighborhoods, we feel the Beacons Field site is well positioned to accommodate this activity due to its proximity to the Renfrew SkyTrain station that's within a 10-minute walk, reducing parking pressures. The concept plan also features environmental impact mitigation measures that are a key component of the project. In addition to the appropriate selection of infill material, physical interventions such as infill containment trays, raised perimeter curbs, boot brushes, and fencing screens will be included to manage impacts. As the city densifies, parks need to work harder and accommodate a variety of amenities and uses. Beaconsfield Park provides an opportunity to both increase biodiversity and recreational service level in one location. And staff are confident these two uses can be complementary to one another in a densifying city.
The total anticipated project costs, based on an order of magnitude estimate, and including soft costs, project management fees, permitting, escalation, and contingency is $9.8 million, funded from the 2023-26 and 2027-2030 capital plans, subject to prior as I take. Prioritization within an approval of the 2027-2030 capital plan. Potential partnership funding is to be determined and subject to fundraising and partnership agreements, and any partner funding would contribute towards amenities not covered in the base scope estimated above. The estimated annual operating impact capital budget is $250,000, including $60,000 for synthetic turf operations.
Reviewing the timeline, you can see the project has spanned over 15 years, bringing us to this evening's presentation.
Subject to the board's decision on the recommendations, the next step for the project would be to proceed to detailed design while continuing engagement with interested parties and potential partnership groups. Detailed design is targeted to be completed in 2027, which would allow the project to be construction ready by 2028, subject to funding.
The concept plan shared tonight aligns with Park Board policies, is well supported through prior engagement, and follows Board direction to prioritize the project. It's therefore the recommendation that the Vancouver Park Board approve the proposed concept plan for the Beaconsfield Park synthetic turf field as described in the report. The staff continue to work with interested parties and partner groups through detailed design to confirm project details, cost sharing, and profit contributions, and the Board directs staff to share this report with Mayor and Council for information in relation to the Council motion approved on September 17, 2025, titled Accelerating the Turf Field Upgrade at Beaconsfield Park for Inclusion in the 2027-2030 Capital Plan. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Commissioners, queue's open for questions. Commissioner Herr. Thank you for this.
Some questions. When you did community engagement and spoke to some of the stakeholders, what was their wish list? Did they want a more competitive size?
Thank you for the question. Yes, I noted in the presentation that there is a desire for more field width where possible, and we do understand that desire. In this scenario, we're just trying to balance out the site constraints with the desired amenities with the maximum field width that we could allow along with project cost as well.
Sure. And then in Vancouver, how many fields do we have for soccer that are competitive, that fall into that competitive range?
Yeah, most of our fields, I believe seven of them are the 100 by 64. There's exceptions at Kitsilano, which is 50 meters. So it's a shorter one. There's the mini field at Hillcrest. And then the new, well, they're not, excuse me, they're not new. The renewal that's happening at Andy Livingston are 60 meter wide fields.
60 meter, okay. The recommended is usually 70, right?
The FIFA minimum, sort of the, how do I put it? The typical ideal minimum is 64 meter width by 100 meter length. In some cases, it can go up to 68, which would be sort of FIFA's ideal, but that's to allow for international and high-level matches. So it allows the range of youth games and amateur clubs, but also allows for high-level matches.
Well again sometimes on the roulette wheel I end up pulling duds and there's another sin turf motion that we have to being asked to approve today so I'm not going to ask the same questions before I'll just say so you're thinking of using EPDM infill on this turf that's the recommended one for okay we heard you that from before so that's the same I'm I am very curious about the relationship to the wetland, which is just finished development, is it? Is that wetland fully completed as of now, or is it still... Yeah, the wetland is completed.
I understand it will be completed in the coming weeks.
Coming weeks and so what is the relationship between the field like on the map? I'm just looking at the line I mean, they're very closely aligned and is there gonna be any flow of any kind any water flow between the two is there gonna be any pedestrian flow between the two or is there is are these kind of like separated spaces like from a we'll start with a people usage point of view concept um yeah yeah so you went too far here actually yeah
So to your first question, Commissioner Digby, the constructed wetland sits in essentially direct adjacency to the synthetic turf field. Now the wetland itself captures stormwater from the east and south portions of the park and does not and will not capture the stormwater from the field. This was also partially due to the site constraints. You can see the Metro Vancouver, which is the dash red line, is a constraint to the south. You have the property line to the north. And then we actually wanted to maintain as much field width as possible, and that was discussed during the design of the capacity for the wetland. So with that said, the sport field itself will manage and detain all of its stormwater itself. It will actually now, because we have to follow rain city policy, it will reduce or manage the peak flow that comes out. And because we're using the containment trays and specific stormwater infrastructure, the actual infill cover migration will have opportunity or will be captured prior to being discharged.
Yeah, the containment trays are at the field level that stop the migration, and there's ability to maintain and remove the crumb rubber.
Okay, and did I see in the report that the surface water is not going to flow ultimately into the constructive wetland? It's going to join into a different outlet down into... But it ultimately ends up in Still Creek or in the sewers?
Ultimately, the field flows will not end up in the wetland. They'll push to the drainage ditch, which is tributary to Still Creek to the north. But that's after they would be detained in the stormwater management system and sort of filtered through the infill and containment trays.
Okay.
Commissioner Bostevansky.
Thank you for this. Absolutely wonderful to see another turf field.
But one of my questions or concerns are around the dimensions of the field. So we have it as 55 metres wide by 100. Now, that would be the most narrow of the turf fields that we have in the city. And you mentioned FIFA standards, but I'm wondering whether or not, like the BC Soccer Association and BCCSL have been consulted on whether or not this is suitable for adult play.
So the way that at this field it would be focused on primary use, which is currently youth and amateur sport. And the understanding with that is that if you go to a higher level play, a 55-meter, you'd be hoping for the 64, so it wouldn't be compatible with the high level of play. Is that an answer?
Yeah, so there's a few items in there that seem to be taking up space when we could actually go for a wider one. In the other turf fields, stands and covered seating has not been a priority. It's always been about the players first, so about the quality and width of the field. So are there design elements that could be removed to make it to 60 or ideally 64?
We can certainly look into those options. One, as I sort of mentioned, the impacts would be to the spectator seating as well as the circulation to and around the field. And it's just negotiating the Metrovan right-of-way on the south. And it just comes with added cost as well to the retaining because that field grows and, excuse me, that site raises in elevation as you go, so it adds cost as you go further. We can explore options. As a note, 64, we reviewed 64 meters and it's not achievable just due to the fact that it literally overlaps the right way.
Yes. And, you know, 64 would be ideal. But the correspondence that I've received from these soccer associations is that 60 meters is kind of the minimum playable width for adults. And so there is a huge demand for that. I appreciate that, you know, a smaller field is good for kids. But bigger fields are also good for kids because you can just make a field smaller with cones. I know the covered seating area would be – is the covered seating area, is that necessary? Is that a critical piece of this?
No. It would be, spectator scene is always desired where it is, but it wouldn't be a critical piece to playing sports on the synthetic turf field.
Yes, okay. So is that, what type of policy direction or change to the motion would we need to have 60 metres as the minimum for this project?
Commissioner, as my colleague noted, that we can go back to the feasibility study. I think we'd have to come back with some updated costing for the additional retaining. As my colleague mentioned, 64 metres is not possible. We can certainly look at 60 metres.
Thank you.
I'll just ask a follow-up question, Commissioner Bastavansky. So just a clarification. So if the, does, how to phrase this, does that seating that's there, if that were to be not happened, if that was removed, would that give the space for a larger field without any additional cost, or does that, those are sort of different things?
Sorry.
If you took, you'd be, to go to 60 meters, you'd definitely be cutting into that slope, and you'd also have to remove the covered seating and cutting, so it would come with additional costs.
Okay. How much additional field space could you get if you just removed the seating but didn't start pushing out the retaining area?
Oh, a couple, yeah, you have three meters. That gray path around the edge is three meters.
Okay, so you'd get like 58.
You'd be at 58.
Is that like a thing that you can do as a 58-meter field, or is that not a thing?
You could consider it. Okay. To get the width.
Okay, thanks.
You would lose, sorry, to note on that, you would lose your circulation. That's the circulation path around the field. So getting to and from would be compromised. You'd have to look at alternative solutions to that.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Hare.
The numbers. I just want to understand the numbers here. From the edge of the field right now to the red dotted line, how many meters is that?
We're at about 10. So, yeah, once you push that out, you just have to consider the impacts of the retaining and the work. The construction work actually would take a larger footprint, and we're not allowed to dig within the right-of-way boundary that you're seeing.
Would you have to ask for permission or just not allowed to dig?
That's a sanitary right-of-way that's actually at a very shallow depth. So in those scenarios, you'd have to ask for permission to do anything over top. You might get acceptance to do something on a surface treatment, but going underground or digging that area wouldn't be feasible.
Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner Howard.
Thank you. Just a question for staff. The idea behind the corridor, is that for parents and family to watch matches? What exactly is the intent of this corridor?
Yes, it's for spectator and user seating and covered just being a dry location.
So would you say this is an area of town where this particular field would be aimed for juniors and there will be a lot of demand for parents to hang out around the field and watch the children play?
That would be a reasonable assumption. Is that the wrong word?
That would be reasonable, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Seeing that there are no further questions from commissioners and no one's populating the queue, thank you so much. We do have 10 registered speakers this evening, and we'll get to our registered speakers now.
If you notice that Commissioner Christensen just stepped out, so my name is Commissioner Jensen, and I'll be taking over for the time being. Our first up is Ella Simon, and next up is Maureen.
Again, please state your name, who you represent, and your position on this plan, and you'll have three minutes, and the time will be up there once you begin speaking.
Oh, perfect. Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Ella Simon. I'm a resident near Beaconsfield Park, and oh, timer's already started. I'm opposed. I want to start by saying I truly understand the need for more playing space in the city. But where we place these fields matter, and the location raises significant concerns. First, the field proposed is directly beside the newly constructed wetland and within the Still Creek watershed. The city has recently invested in that wetland to support biodiversity and improve water quality. And now we're considering placing a synthetic surface immediately adjacent to it. There is also a watershed where salmon have only recently returned after decades of restoration. Artificial turf sheds microplastics over time, even with mitigation measures. And from a practical standpoint, the orientation of that field means that balls will inevitably fly into that wetland. That's something that already happens now. So increased use will only intensify that, leading to repeated disturbances of people going into the wetland to fetch their balls. So there's a clear tension between investing in the ecological restoration and introducing a high-use facility right next to it. Their public engagement was actually only citywide and done in 2018. There has not been clear targeted engagement with those most directly affected, including nearby residents, the seniors, the gardening community, and the Indigenous caretakers of the 215 Memorial Garden, which was created in 2023. A project of this scale warrants input from all those stakeholders, not just the soccer clubs. Third, while proximity to transit is noted, the reality is that almost all families drive. Parking in this area is already severely constrained on the street. and at the lot at the Italian Cultural Centre is already over capacity. This project would significantly increase that demand, and it has real implications on the seniors living in the housing nearby at Fila Cartilla. I also want to address the idea that this is a good location because of nearby fields. Concentrating multiple soccer facilities in one area doesn't improve access. It intensifies impact on a single neighbourhood. A more balanced approach across the city would better serve residents of Vancouver overall, in my opinion. Finally, this is a significant public investment, and at the same time, the gravel field is already being restored as part of that wetland project, only to potentially be removed again. That raises reasonable questions about sequencing and long-term planning for this site. So my ask... is simple. Please pause this decision. Take the time to meaningfully engage with the community, the stakeholders I previously mentioned. And carefully reconsider whether this is the right project in the right place. Because once it's built, the impacts will not be temporary. They'll be permanent. So thank you for your time. I also have a petition that one of my neighbours started. Thank you so much.
Stay where you are. We'll just see if any commissioners have any follow-up questions. Usually well-spoken people don't get questions, and there are no questions. So thank you very much for being with us this evening. Thank you for saying I'm well-spoken. Next up, Maureen, you know the drill, and after that we'll have Darren Sherbaugh.
Maureen Sherbaugh, and I'll be quick, because I really appreciate the slide that showed why staff has to make the impossible decision between being in a rock and a hard place. We need more parks. We have so many people. We don't have any. Oh, by the way, most of the parks that we decided to make parks in the early 30 years of the 20th century are on swampy land because developers didn't want them. So we thought, oh, good, let's turn them into parks and schools. So unfortunately, most of the parks we have don't have good drainage. And... probably might not be very feasible to turn them in. So I appreciate the difficult decision. So I'm in favor. You can't win whichever decision.
Thank you so much. I'll look to see if there's any follow-up questions. And, again, thank you so much for being here this evening. Darren Sherbaugh, you are next up. And then it is Jane Kalmikoff. Thank you. Darren is on phone. Thank you, Darren.
You may begin. Still representing 7,000 youth between U6 and U18 and over 12,000... I've been a volunteer with Vancouver Field Sports Federation for over 15 years and with Vancouver Youth Soccer Station for 10 years now. Again, with this project, we are a strong supporter of any initiative, fast track, that will directly support and increase the city's field inventory for youth soccer and other sports that may benefit this. Particularly on the cusp of World Cup, we know there will be increased interest and demand for all programming from recreational to high performance, youth and adults. The Columbia and Beaconsfield projects tonight that have been put forth are in a most appreciated segue to meet that future demand. The Vancouver Youth Soccer Association supports this motion in principle, but encourages the City and Vancouver Parks Board to cooperatively advance these projects with the following suggestions. Motion B noted that interested parties and partner groups had been consulted with on project details. I must note though that neither Vancouver Youth Soccer Association, BC Coastal Soccer League, or our provincial service operator bc soccer association have been contacted directly or have been afforded an opportunity to do so recently had you talked to them they would have all expressed a concern about the 55 meter field and proposed an alternative width at least 60 meters for example the general consensus is if we were going to spend the time and effort making this field then let's do it right so we can use it for all user groups We'd also like to note that the motion had considered the partnership opportunities and we'd like those to be fully extended to all potential unit groups in a transparent manner and that confirmation that no preferred or primary allocation access is provided to individual user groups based on financial contributions alone. Motion A asks that we approve the plan in Appendix A based on a 55 meter. You've already heard questions about that tonight. Holding all things equal, Our service provider, BC Soccer Association, BC Coastal Soccer League, and Vancouver Youth Soccer Association would all rather have a regular sized field given the considerable expense and effort that will be taken to undertake this project. Perhaps the consultants can look at offsetting the cedar from the center line. That may accommodate both a 60 meter wide field and still preserve some seating for spectators, parents, et cetera. Looking at the plan without going into engineering drawings, that looks like it is a possibility, which would be a win-win for all things considered. I would also strongly urge the Parks Board going forward to directly liaise with our provincial sports organization or Canada soccer organization, such as BC Soccer, before citing International Football Association board standards. those fields at the 55 other than kits which is not used for anything would have been one of the narrowest fields in the lower mainland and despite uh i guess notes that this could be better for technical development or for recreational use in fact maybe the opposite adults will be used and players will be used to the wild field and a shorter field or narrow fields may be dangerous Again, I think if you're going to build it, let's build it right and at least match the standards that we see at Andy Livingston and others park. Lastly, support for this goes ahead, assuming it will not affect the timing and delivery of the other initiatives currently underway, such as the refurbishment of Andy East or West and the kit sliding program.
Darren, thank you so much for your time this evening. That is three minutes. We had a little challenge with the clock, but we gave additional time to make sure that we weren't punishing you with our challenges here. I'll look to see if there's any questions from commissioners to you. And I don't see any, so I again thank you for your time this evening. And I will call up Jane Kalmanikoff, and after that it will be Josh Bender.
Hi, yeah, I'm Jane Kelmakoff, and I want to speak to the health concerns related to artificial turf. I'm going to tell you about a report from the Children's Environmental Health Centre from May 2025. They came to the conclusion after studying what was available in terms of safety information that they strongly discouraged the installation of artificial turf playing services in fields due to the uncertainty surrounding the safety of these products. and the potential for dangerous heat and chemical exposures. In addition, recent studies demonstrating the presence of PFAs and microplastics in these products raised significant concerns for both human health and environmental contamination. They conducted a review, as I said, and found big gaps in the evidence supporting the safety of artificial turf products. They didn't see it. are uniquely vulnerable to harmful exposures from artificial turf services because of their unique physiology. They're rapidly developing organ systems and immature detoxification mechanisms. Children may be exposed to artificial turf, can't get on the field, are going to be putting stuff in their mouths. Vulnerability to turf chemicals persists through the teen years as the reproductive and nervous systems continue to develop beyond the first two decades of life. I'm doing a real quick study here of this. I have copies for you, though. Questions remain about the safety of alternatives to crumb rubber. They mention in particular EPDM, which is one of the ones you've mentioned, as alternate infills. The information regarding the safety of them is lacking or limited. Recent studies showed that the presence of known carcinogens and neurotoxins, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, I can't even pronounce it, Lead, zinc, and black carbon in almost all alternative infill materials. This brings up for me the question of the options that you did list do not give us a full list of their components, and that worries me. Also in this report, undisclosed chemicals of concern. Undisclosed chemicals of concern. are present in plastic grass blades and turf pads and matting.
They found more than 15,000 chemicals linked to NERMR's health project. Am I out of time? You are out of time.
I would like to urge you to read this. Please read the petition and to delay this decision.
You can just leave them there for now because you are going to get a question asked to you by Commissioner Hare. Commissioner Hare.
Thank you so much. Just a few questions. Are you doing this research, or is this published? This is published research. And is it peer-reviewed, and is it associated with any universities? Okay, that's the petition.
That's the article. Sorry, what's the question again? Is it peer-reviewed?
Is it peer-reviewed? Peer-reviewed. Is it associated with any universities?
Yes, it's associated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. These are a group of pediatricians, epidemiologists, lab scientists, scientists.
And it's in a journal as well, I'm assuming?
I'm sure it must be.
Okay.
Yeah, I found it online. It's got a long list of sources in the back that you have on your copies.
Okay, thank you.
Staying there, we've got Commissioner Digby as well.
Let's try that again.
Thank you. So your concerns are my concerns exactly about the uncertainties of the infill material. It's not really known. We've heard from staff that the EPDM is the best they can identify. has not been identified with specific risks. But I get your point that we are uncertain about it. But how do you balance that with getting kids playing sports 12 months a year on a lit field? and the health benefits that players are going to get from that. How do you balance that in your head?
I'd like to try to answer that, but first I'd like to correct you. It is known, the effects of PFAs is known. This article is stating quite clearly that there are dangers. They don't know the extent of those dangers.
Yeah, that product is listed here. Thank you. And acrylics, we know, are full of plastic. I mean, the other options, as I said, they don't say what's in them. And then there's the little plastic blades of grass, which are full of the PFAs. And balance that with the sports? Balancing that. It's a huge, beautiful park. two great big fields that are used all year long when it's not pouring rain um i i don't see a problem there people are using that park all the time yeah for all kinds of things for all kinds of things but lots of sports thank you yeah thank you very much for your time and thank you for sharing your material with us this evening uh next up is josh bender and after that we have catherine cadence
Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Josh Bender, Executive Director of Vancouver Athletic Football Club. We represent over 3,000 youth soccer players and over 5,000 soccer parents across Vancouver. We want to express our strong support for both the Columbia Park renewal and the Beaconsfield turf project. These are exactly the types of investments that Vancouver needs, increasing year-round access, improving quality, and responding to the very real growth happening across the city. From our perspective on the ground, demand for field space continues to significantly outpace supply. Access, particularly to safe and high-quality space with lighting, is one of the biggest constraints facing youth sport in Vancouver today. So projects like this are not just welcome, they are essential. That said, I want to highlight an important consideration as the city continues to invest in new and upgraded fields. Building this new capacity is critical, but how that capacity is allocated and how clubs are engaged will be just as important to long-term success. Clubs like ours are not just users, we are delivery partners. We organize programming, develop players, and activate these spaces every day across the city. As partnerships are explored, it will be important that any access models remain transparent, consistent, and equitable across all user groups. If community organizations are contributing to projects, there should be a clear and consistent framework for how that translates into access applied fairly across the system. The background documentation for this project notes that local users have been consulted and that joint funding options have been explored. To date, to the best of our knowledge, and despite our prior requests, no one has reached out to VFC, the largest club in eastern central Vancouver, and one with the largest percentage of participation ratios for both recreational and high-performance players, and the highest ratio of girls. For a proposed new field in the middle of our historical catchment, a chance to be engaged equitably relative to other user groups is a concern for us. As we move forward with projects like Columbia and Beaconsfield, I would encourage the board to continue exploring models that support partnerships with multiple community clubs, recognize the role of these clubs in delivering consistent, high-quality programming, and ensure that increased capacity translates into meaningful, reliable access for the organizations serving the largest number of Vancouver participants in an inclusive environment. VFC is already exploring ways to contribute to solutions, including partnerships, programming, and potential capital participation, and we welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the city and park board as these plans advance. Thank you again for your leadership and for moving these important projects forward.
Thank you so much. I'll just look to see if there's any questions. Seeing none, thank you for your time this evening. Up next is Catherine Kaditz, and next after that is Clea Moray.
I'm Catherine Kaditz, and I oppose this.
Do you want to move your mic down just a smidge? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We would love to hear you. Go ahead.
Okay. I'm Catherine Kaditz, and I oppose this AstroTurf plan. And I request that, as park commissioners, you follow the science. Follow health concerns and the environmental impacts of things like styrene, butadiene, metals that leach into the water, metals that leach into the groundwater. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons going into... people's bodies, phthalates, thermoplastic, elastomes, ethylene propylene, and other items that are disruptors, hormone disruptors, health risks to people.
Yes, Commissioner Baskievansky, it is wonderful to see kids playing and getting wet, cold, but being happy in the winter. But weigh that against the hormone disruptors of these chemicals. I know, I know, you guys, you have an environmental staff in-house. You know, people who probably went to school for, what would that be, renewable resources, better use through chemicals, better life through chemicals. But those cold, wet, and happy children will someday, some of them will face the sadness. of not being able to reproduce, having trouble reproducing, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to reproduce, because these chemicals will hurt their hormonal system, their neurological disruptors as well. And the health hazards include cancer. You can find this on the internet. Find this every place on the internet. Find the problems with using these types of chemicals. And they say, oh, there are safer chemicals. Go read what those safer chemicals are. I urge you, don't vote for another synthetic field in this city, especially near the Still Creek area.
Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions for the speaker? Seeing none, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Clea Morey by phone.
Clea, do we have you online?
Speaker 7, Clea?
Going once. Apparently she's on called in, but if you're on mute. Oh, there you are. Yes, I can hear you now. Perfect. Great. If you can just state your name, who you're representing, and your position on the matter, and you'll have three minutes. I'll let you know when your time's up. Go ahead. Yes. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Clea Murray, and I'm speaking on behalf of Still Moon Art Society in opposition to the motion. We're a community arts and environment nonprofit based in Renfrew, Collingwood, where Beacon Fields is located. Our organization is home to the Still Creek Stream Keepers, and we've led community volunteers in contributing thousands of hours to improve the health of Still Creek over the past 20 years. I want to be clear, we support investment in Beaconsfield Park. Kids deserve good playing field, and we recognize the real demand for field time in this neighborhood. But we're asking the board tonight to pause concept approval, not to stop this project, but to do it right. and the Parks Board feasibility report itself, when read carefully, gives us very good reason to ask for that pause. This is not an ordinary site. Beaconsfield Park sits within the Still Creek watershed, and a tributary of Still Creek runs along the north boundary of the park. Still Creek is one of Vancouver's very few remaining salmon-bearing urban streams. Salmon returned there in 2012 after an absence of 80 years, the result of decades of costly community and public investment. Still Moon community volunteers and indigenous stewards have all worked to protect that recovery and we can't afford to undermine it. Critically, this park is designated by the city as a green rainwater infrastructure site meant to filter and absorb urban runoff before it enters the creek. But the feasibility report states that the site can't meet the city's rain city strategy rainfall capture targets and runoff from the field will bypass the constructed wetland. and discharge directly into the municipal storm system, which flows into Still Creek only a few hundred meters from where salmon spawn. In short, we're being asked to approve a concept that can't meet the city's environmental standards for this site. And we still don't know what will go into the field. The feasibility report lists three possible infill products without recommending or committing to any of them. We're being asked to approve a concept whose central environmental mitigation measures has not been decided. Excluding crumb rubber, as the city has done, while important, does not resolve the broader chemical picture. The report contains no assessment of PFAS forever chemical compounds, which are present in the plastic fibers and backing of virtually all synthetic turf products.
No assessment of biocides and fungicides used in fiber treatments. No assessment of zinc and copper leaching, which a study from UBC published just this month found to occur from EPDM infield fields at levels harmful to salmon. Musqueam Environmental Stewardship has raised concerns about chemical leachate and its effect on Still Creek. The response in this report is to exclude crumb rubber. That is not a resolution to Musqueam's concern. It's a partial response to one of them. Proceeding to concept approval tonight while these concerns remain open is not consistent with the city's reconciliation commitment. A better field and a living salmon stream are not opposing goals, but getting there requires a process that matches the complexity of this site. I'm sorry to cut you off. Unfortunately, that's your three-minute time limit. I'm so sorry. Do commissioners have any clarification questions?
Thank you for calling in, Cleo. I apologize for cutting you off like that, but we do have quite a few more speakers to get through tonight. Thank you for calling in today. Our next speaker is Carmen Donfrio. Sorry, I apologize for the pronunciation. Hopefully you can correct me on that. Please come on up. If you can state your name, who you're representing, your position on the matter. Sure.
Thank you very much. My name is Carmen Donfrio, and I'm the president of the Italian Canadian Sports Federation and ICSF Columbus FC. I'm in strong support of this field. It's overdue. It's a field that's underutilized. It's a gravel field that we're converting to an all-weather field that can be used all year round. Right now, we're one of the fastest-growing clubs in Vancouver in the Lower Mainland. We have over 1,400 members from 4-year-olds to 74-year-olds. And for us, it's an integral part of the community, Beaconsfield Park, being members of the Italian Cultural Centre that's adjacent to it. Having family and friends in the senior homes at Caritel and Casa Serena who absolutely love seeing the kids playing. It's actually therapeutic for them in support of this. Sunny Hill Hospital, the preschool and K-3 classes that are at El Centro would use the field on a regular basis. For us right now, we've got over 100 kids on the wait list. not able to play because we don't have field space. The other thing that we've had to do is rent out fields to play games and practices at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, up on Burnaby Mountain. So that's carbon footprint and impact. Our home games now are sometimes played at Jericho Park, where most of our kids reside in the east end. So again, travel time and carbon footprint. So this would become a hub to our community. I'd like to also reiterate that the 60 metres minimum is absolutely necessary. We're trying to build our community and get the older kids and the seniors to be able to play there so we're one larger group, as has been expressed by the other club associations here. The 60 minimum, ideally 64, is more important than the stands at this time, and it'll be used. With the extra space, we could put more kids on there to practice and play. We could also look at other sports, ultimate rugby, field hockey. We've already had interest in other clubs joining our sports federation with a hockey club this year, for example. We've also had interest for field sports, particularly ultimate frisbee and flag football, just to name a few. So I know it would be used. It unfortunately rains in Vancouver. I'm sure we can mitigate the balls going into the creek or into the lake with higher fencing. Parking is abundant, Italian Culture Centre. The only time that parking is maxed out at the centre is at a banquet in the evening, which happens five or six times a year, or a wedding, but not on a Saturday afternoon, not on a Sunday afternoon. There's abundant parking. and we've got transit there as well and a bus line that stops right in front of the italian culture center which would be beaconsfield park but thank you for your time i appreciate it thank you very much perfect timing uh do any commissioners have questions we do but commissioner digby go ahead
I heard you say it's a 60-metre minimum, but I did think the Italian Cultural Centre wanted the stands and wanted to raise money for those stands, so you'd be okay going without stands if you could have a 60-metre minimum?
Yes. Yes, at this time the 60-meter minimum is more important because we would actually unite the club and have more teams being able to play on the pitch on a regular basis from five-year-old kids to 65-year-old men. What we're trying to do is build community and have more people use the field. So at this time, the size of the field is more important than the stance. Thank you.
Commissioner Hare. Thank you for coming today. In regards to engaging with the other clubs that play as well, like for soccer, have there been any promises where your club would get exclusivity, or is the field open to all clubs, soccer clubs?
Open to all clubs. We'd like it to be used as much as possible. It would also help the Italian Cultural Centre that has a bar, a restaurant, banquet halls facilities to integrate that space. The K-3 program in the preschool at the Italian Council Centre would use the space all the time. And for us, it would help us with our growing club. We would imagine that, you know, Parks Board, once parks are allocated, that if the majority of our residents live in East Vancouver in the area... would be able to use that field rather than drive to Jericho, for example, to play our home games, or us renting out Simon Fraser University to play our games for the senior teams as well as practices.
But at any time did Park Board promise exclusivity to you, to your club? Or was the arrangement or agreement that it is open to all clubs? Because there's some concern that the other clubs have not been or associations haven't been consulted properly.
If they haven't been consulted, that's news to me. But I know that we've been consulted because we're part of the Italian Cultural Centre. We're a member society. It's adjacent to us. We use the field. It's kind of our quote-unquote home. So that field there right now is not being used by... any other teams it's just a few of our kids that are practicing on that space but if you if you were to go there on a random you know saturday afternoon or or or sunday the gravel field is empty okay thank you commissioner howard online uh thank you uh just a question about you mentioned that phil hockey was would be interested in playing on that field could you elaborate on this Well, we've had requests from a number of different individuals that operate teams. So, for example, we're a sports federation. So we, this year in August, September, we will be having our first ICSF hockey team. So we're expanding. We've also had interest from bike clubs to join our society. And we've had interest from... seniors or adults that play field hockey, flag football, and ultimate to be part of our club.
The turf that has been selected for this particular field is not suitable for field hockey though.
Is it something that you would want to change or to accommodate?
If that means to make the field larger, we would be fine with that.
No, the grass would have to be shorter.
The turf field?
The turf?
No, the priority then when we would communicate to that individual that expressed interest in joining our federation, that this would be predominantly used for soccer, flag football, ultimate, those types of field sports.
Thank you for clarifying.
No problem.
Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for coming to speak tonight. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rob Massitti. Rob? Come on up.
You can just state your name, who you're representing, position on the matter, and three minutes up on the screen.
Good evening, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Rob MacCitty, and I'm the vice president of the Italian Canadian Sports Federation. And I'm here today to speak on two points. One, as the vice president, where on any given weekend we see... with the current situation at Beacons Field and the grass fields and the gravel fields, due to inclement weather, we encounter field cancellations, which means parents begin to struggle with the cancellations and trying to find alternate time slots. Given the field restrictions and availability, they are now struggling with parents or with kids to find a suitable location for them to fulfill their activities. Secondly, as a person who has lived in the community for over 40 years, I frequented Beacons Field and I've actually endured the scenarios where field closures were part of a regular process throughout the weekends, which also meant delays and further frustrations that have been communicated by parents, coaches, and players alike. So given the proposal tonight with the... WITH THE CURRENT GRAVEL SITUATION, IT DOES PROVIDE ISSUES WITH THE TRANSFORMATION INTO AN ALL WEATHER PITCH. IT DOES ALLOW US TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CALENDAR YEAR. IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, Field sports, as my colleague had mentioned earlier, it just offers us the opportunity to expand services throughout the year and deal with the inclement weather that Vancouver is accustomed to. I am a... strong supporter of this initiative and this proposal and I do encourage that the field regulation is considered to be 60 meters rather than the one that has been proposed by the current outline. So thank you very much for your time and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners? Thank you so much. Our last speaker is Carly Paxton.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Carly Paxton. I'm a board member speaking on behalf of the Italian Canadian Sports Federation and a long-time resident of East Vancouver. I'm here to strongly support the development of the Beaconsfield turf in East Van. Our community is growing, and with the growth comes an increasing demand for safe, accessible, and reliable recreational spaces for youth, families, and local sports organizations. The Beaconsfield turf allows clubs to schedule more practices and accommodate more teams, helping meet growing demands and reduce wait lists. Most importantly, it provides a safe, high-quality surface that supports player development and keeps athletes engaged and active. Beyond athletics, it creates a hub for community connection and offers a positive outlook for young people. I urge the board to move this project forward to help build a healthier, more connected community. Thank you.
Thank you. Do any commissioners have questions? Thank you so much for coming to speak tonight.
That brings us to the end of our speakers.
Would somebody like to move the recommendation as presented by staff? I see Commissioner Bastivansky and a seconder, Commissioner Hare. Thanks. We'll now discuss the recommendation. Commissioner's comments, please. Commissioner Bastiwanski, go ahead.
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.
So I appreciate my commissioner colleagues and recognizing the importance of making fields as inclusive as possible. And I love the idea of covered stands. I'm a former rugby player. I know what it's like being out in the rain. But I know that Vancouver is full of loving parents that will stand in the rain with an umbrella. And I don't think that's too much to ask. If we can get more space and we remove a few things like that, I think it's more important that the adults can play with the kids. I think it has a broader appeal. I think we'll get more use out of it. And so I'm going to be supportive of this. And this is a great opportunity to continue adding extra capacity so our kids can play. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.
Commissioner Howard.
Thank you. I will be supporting this project. It's long overdue and I think a great project. Anytime you can change a gravel field. into a turf field, it's a huge achievement. I understand that some people are concerned about a turf field, but I think playing on pebbles is not exactly a good idea. It's a game. So this is an improvement for the community. I think it's bringing in a full-size field is also important. It would be nice to have some protected seating area, but I don't think that's crucial. And I think this particular field is great for a soccer field because of the Italian community center being...
right beside it. So great project. Can't wait to have it come along and people actually enjoying it.
Commissioner Digby.
This is another painful decision. And I'll defer my time to Commissioner Jensen and come back in a moment.
Okay. Commissioner Jensen, go ahead.
Thank you. It took me a while to get everything ready, but I've submitted an amendment in writing and would like to strike and replace A, to defer this recommendation to quarter 2, 2026, to allow staff to investigate field dimension, report back on the feasibility and costing of a 60-metre width, and to further consult with user groups to explain this out. Thank you. Sorry. To further explain this out, again, this came to this board July 2025, and I think there does need to be more consultation. Hearing from user groups that are completely in favour of this but didn't feel that they were properly heard I think is important to ensure that they have an opportunity to be heard in this. I think that that's where you get this... field dimensions being changed. I think it's really important that the sporting community is heard. The decision we make today is going to be quite considered. And so having them come back, and again, this would make sure that, again, we are doing this within the timeframe of the capital plan.
We'll need a seconder for this amendment. Can I get a seconder, please?
Commissioner Digby, thank you. And we'll move to questions to the mover of the amendment. Any questions for Commissioner Jensen on this amendment?
Commissioner Digby.
Yeah, so please explain how this improves the amendment and how does this connect to the capital plan where we are going to see a capital plan on the first week of June here and you've deferred this recommendation possibly until after that date.
Don't you think you're putting the whole project at risk?
Well, I think we can still as a board look to direct funds through the capital plan. And, you know, we know how much that money can be allocated for. But I would rather listen or rather have. the community to be heard than the seven of us. So, you know, staff has already engaged with the community. So having them report back by Q2, you know, there's a number of user groups that can simply leave their business cards. as a exit today and we can certainly ensure that their voices are heard and echoed in what's coming forward. But again, I do want to make sure that those that came to speak tonight and those that we heard from through emails are having an opportunity to be included in this very significant decision.
Commissioner Herr, questions to Commissioner Jensen. Thank you so much.
With the Italian Canadian Sports Federation, which is a major group, do you think that they could take it upon themselves to reach out to the various soccer groups without slowing this down?
Again, I would... I certainly trust their due diligence. I know that they've been involved in this as well, but I would actually prefer this driven by staff as part of a staff recommendation. Ultimately, for myself, I would love to see a recommendation that comes here that meets the needs of all user groups that are going to be actively engaging in this space, and that has been shared through consultation with staff. So again, to those that spoke tonight, and again, those that have shared their feelings through emails, that again, they're included in this consultation process. And again, this came to the board in July 2025. You know, requesting an additional bit of homework, I think, is not asking too much. And again, I trust staff that they'll be able to do that homework effectively and allow that to come back to this board with recommendations that meet not just the needs of the Italian Cultural Centre user group, but also to the other groups that came and spoke tonight.
Right. With the other clubs that came tonight, do you think the staff who have obviously heard the other groups consult with them as well because right now we're just in the planning process if you slow this down this might be another like we don't know what's going to happen after September even you just don't know rather than slowing it down we've already expressed our concerns to the staff and maybe they could do their due diligence as well rather than slowing this down to Q2. What do you think?
I stand by my motion. I believe in the turtle in the air and that slow and steady wins the race. And again, this is a pause that allows those to speak.
I mean, they have been waiting over 15 years.
Okay, Commissioner Herr, we're going to move on. Do you have any further questions? No, that's fine. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question to the staff about the timing of Q2 2026 and the feasibility of reporting back in that timeline, just realizing that we are already at the end of March. Is Q2 something that's feasible to report back on? Thanks for the question. So a few things here is asking us to engage and report back. It's already Q2. We're in April, May, June, so we wouldn't have sufficient time. That being said, we have heard loud and clear from not only the Italian sports clubs, but other groups that their preference is for a 60 meter. So I do feel that that additional engagement might lead us back to the place we are now with a recommendation to explore and cost a 60 meter dimension. Thanks. Thank you. Sorry, to answer the question, it wouldn't be possible to report back within Q2, you're saying? We would struggle to effectively engage during that time. It is already Q2, so a Q2 report back would be due. It's still March. Well, minus a few hours. Thanks.
Commissioner Bastiwanski, go ahead.
Also a question to staff. Because at this point, it's only concept design. And so we just need to know, like, envelope for the capital plan. And so the engagement, you're still coming back to us. There's still opportunity for engagement. So have I understood that correctly?
Yes, you've understood that correctly. And just to reiterate the previous statement, the only reason, again, staff contemplated the 55 was to accommodate the seeding given the partnership opportunities that were discussed. We would not normally look to plan a field of that size. So, again, I think engaging further with users may be valuable, but it may also just delay this project when I think, again, we do know loud and clear that this would be the preference and this is where our sport field strategy would be recommending us as well. As much as I want to leave this decision to the board, I would highly recommend a decision tonight would be incredibly valuable to us. And again, there is still more touch points to come, and we can certainly ensure that the capital plan has sufficient leeway to make sure that this project can become a reality.
Yes, thank you. Okay.
Further questions?
No.
Okay, thank you. Any further questions to Commissioner Jensen?
Based upon staff, I can pull that. We can go back to the previous. We do need to call a vote on it, unfortunately.
But you will admit that if it's okay that people vote against it, you're okay with that, is what you're saying?
Again, as long as everyone understands that the purpose is to hear from the people. Yes, call it.
Okay, we do have to call a vote on it. All in favor of the amendment on the screen?
There we go.
Seeing that, all opposed?
I'll do that.
Oh, that is a unanimous opposition. I don't think we've ever had that at this board before. So we'll go back to the amended motion as black on the screen. Thank you for that, Commissioner Jensen. I think it clarified some things here. Commissioner Digby, we're still on comments on this one, so go ahead and make your comments, Commissioner Digby.
Yeah, so continuing with the comments, it is really painful for me to agree to synthetic turf fields. And I do take the uncertainty of the infill, the chemical nature of it, and of course the recycling of the turf every 10 or 15 years. But I'm looking at this in the big picture of that neighborhood. It turns out that Still Creek and the Renfrew Ravine is the single biggest biodiversity opportunity we have in the city next to Lost Lagoon right near here. But it is a massive opportunity for greening and intensifying an important section of the city which has been badly neglected. It's often flooded. It's got weeds growing everywhere. And so I'm anxious that we're going to be remaking that area when it comes to the capital plan that we're going to be talking about at this table next week and hopefully pushing up to City Hall. And so I see this synthetic turf field sort of nestled in there. The gravel field that is there right now is not good for kids either. People wipe out on that. You get infections. You get sores. You're less enthusiastic about playing if you're playing on gravel fields. And you're not going to take chances that you would take if you are on a more durable turf. Also, that field there, it's wet all the time. I've never walked on it when it was dry unless it was so hard-baked dry that the dust was kicking up everywhere. And that's not healthy either. So this is one of those balancing opportunities. You know, the dose makes the poison in life. If you lived on synthetic turf, that would not be good. But if you're playing on it for an hour every weekend and you're playing on grass fields the rest of the time, I think that's generally a healthy life. There's lots of toxins in our city. This is... unfortunately a concentrated potentially concentrated area of them but you don't have to live there so I am gonna support the amendment I have this has been a long time coming and probably not enough consultation with the community but it was done over eight years and it's been on our books for a long long time I'll leave it at that Commissioner Herr
I just want to say thank you for making the change to making it a minimal playable width of 60 meters. And hopefully maybe even 64, we don't know. But I am going to be supporting this wholeheartedly. I'm very excited to see multi-generational generations of pupils. or community members that will be able to participate in this sport or multiple different types of sports. And I think that's needed everywhere in Vancouver. I think playing or playing sports is not just for the youth. It's for those who think we're young as well. So I'm looking forward for where this is going to go and how it's going to play out and a brand new field, again, with the width of 60 meters. And thank you. Thank you very much.
Great. Commissioner Bastiwanski, you ready?
Thank you. Yeah, I'm excited to get this approved and going. We need more fields. And I did hear a lot of concern about the environmental impact from turf fields. And I appreciate those. I used to play rugby on the old crumb rubber. The burns you get on your leg from that when you're tackled on an old field, I still have scars. and the amount of debris that ends up in your socks and into your kit. It's a nasty experience. But I've also played on the new ones, and there's less transfer. It feels like grass. And so while in rugby there's hard tackling and all that type of stuff, but the way that the new materials... you don't notice it anywhere near as much as you used to. And so I'm really confident that the new technology is safer. The way the fields are designed, it minimizes the transfer of materials that leaves the area. It used to be like a free-for-all, and now the stuff that comes in is much better designed. So I'm confident in that, and I appreciate that we've had confirmation from staff that we can get to a 60-meter option. And you know the downside is his parents are gonna have to stand around the rain But because they love their kids they're gonna do it anyway, so I'm gonna support this And I hope my colleagues do too. Thank you
Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. I too will be supporting this. I have to say one of the biggest challenges I think that our city has is the number of gravel fields that we still need to turn over into the natural grass or into turf. There is no redeeming quality. As somebody who's played on those, no redeeming quality to a gravel field. The only thing they do is... help us play in the rain, but no one wants to play on gravel in the rain anyways. I will again speak to playing on the new turf. Yeah, my house is littered with little black dots, but it's the price I get to pay for actually enjoying my sport late at night and covered with lights in the rain, in the wind, and in the middle of the summer when it's nice out as well. This is going to Again, my big concern is with consultation. I want to ensure that this field is actually being used by as many players as possible. It's in a great location. This board has consistently looked to invest in East Vancouver and in areas within the city that have been largely without for so long. So this will be a great investment in a community that has long wanted... this type of investment. Again, slow and steady wins the race. So I really do hope that the concept plan that comes back to this board meets the needs of all player groups. We cannot shortchange because we want to save a little bit of money. I think we need to ensure that this field that is invested in meets the needs of that neighbourhood, is a long-term solution to ensure that The five-year-old that begins playing on it in 2029 or so is able to continue their growth as a FIFA athlete when they're 25 years old themselves. So this is a great move forward. This is another gravel field that is going to be offline and very effectively being used by children and families. My concern with Still Creek is there, but I believe that the concept plan that will come back will meet the needs that protects that very important eco area while also ensuring that children and families have a chance to play. So I certainly will be enthusiastically supporting this. Thank you.
We have lots of other agenda items today, so I'm not going to spend much time discussing it other than to say I appreciate all the Commissioner's comments and agree with them, and I'll be supporting it.
Seeing no further comments, I'll call a vote by a show of hands. All in favour? And that is carried unanimously. Thank you, Commissioners. Go yay. You can all clap and slob right now. We're going to keep moving here. We do have a lot to get through tonight.
Yeah, we don't need a quorum, so you can pop out if you want. Okay, commissioners, we're going to move right into the next item. We do have a lot, and we're going to try to get through the entire agenda, including the board, tonight. So buckle up. Yeah, we're going to try to get through the board tonight. We're making good time, so let's keep moving, commissioners.
Okay. Okay. We are moving on to agenda item number three, which is titled Bart on the Beach, Burrard Civic Marina Temporary Storage Facility Lease of Space. This will be introduced by Director Brody.
Good evening, commissioners. I'm happy to introduce a presentation that is about unlocking more value from what we already have by thinking about our park system differently. Instead of considering our park spaces, marinas, and cultural partners as separate pieces, this proposal connects them as nodes within one integrated system. When we do that, we are able to move beyond just managing assets and start activating them. The result is simple but powerful. We create more value for our partners, improve how we operate, and deliver more to the public, all without adding new footprint. We often define a high-performing park system by how well it's built or how well it's maintained. But it should also be defined by how well it partners. Partnerships are multipliers. They accelerate outcomes. They allow us to achieve more, faster, and with greater impact than we could alone. So what you'll see tonight is a clear example of that in action, both the value it creates and the partnership multiplier model that helps unlock accelerated outcomes. I'll turn it over to Associate Director Octavia Silva to walk you through it.
Great. Thank you for your time this evening, Commissioners. I also want to introduce Tim Collins, who's our Manager of Commercial Operations and our subject matter expert when it comes to the Burrard Marina. So on Tim and I's behalf, thank you again for your time. purpose of this presentation, and it speaks to a request from Bart on the Beach to lease some space at the land storage lot at the Burrard Marina, is to present this new opportunity for use as a temporary storage facility, review the needs and the benefits of this particular initiative, and then seek the Board's approval to pursue this opportunity for a period of 10 years.
Before I jump into the presentation, I did want to introduce a few guests from BARD. So first of all, Christopher Gaze, who is the founder and the artistic director for BARD on the Beach, Claire Sakaki, who is the executive director, and Fernando Jacob, who is the CFO. So welcome all, and I believe that Christopher and Claire will be addressing the board later in the night. So just by way of background to build a bit of momentum, again, and I think commissioners are probably aware of this, but BARD was established in 1990. and it's the Western Canada's largest not-for-profit Shakespeare festival, having been in operation 35-plus years. It's presented in Vanier Park annually, and it offers Shakespeare plays, related dramas, and special events from June to September. Through its educational division, it also offers other year-round program opportunities.
Again, with a production that's been in place for 35 years and both a city and a park system that's going around it, a number of challenges have emerged, both operational as well as financial.
I think the board is aware that both park board staff and Bard on the Beach staff have been working collaboratively over the past couple of years. to explore solutions for both operational challenges and now more recently some financial pressures. So a pilot program was approved by this board in 2024 and successfully implemented, whereby we're leaving the main stage arches in place. That provides both some cost-saving benefits for BARD and also public benefits as well in terms of reduced wear and tear in the park spaces as the event sets up and tears down every year. Today we're coming with a second opportunity that's now been identified that has the potential to provide some meaningful cost savings to BARD. And specifically the proposal that is being contemplated is BART is looking to lease approximately 20,000 square feet at the Burrard Civic Marina dry land storage area to establish a temporary storage facility. So by way of the end, there will be some details a little bit later in future slides, but it's an area roughly equivalent to this area here in the slide. As mentioned, it is a space that is located within an existing commercial location, commercial operation. And in working with Tim and his team, it is a space that we believe can be provided to BART for this period of time without significantly impacting marine operations. By way of comparison, it's roughly equivalent. It's actually a little bit less than the amount of space that was made available in 2021, 2022. to a special event. The timeframe that is being contemplated would be 10 years, and that is, again, a medium term from our perspective, but a runway and a time period that we feel is available, and it's the amount of time required to offset and recover the investment. I do want to make it perfectly clear that we don't see this as a permanent solution for storage. It is something that... There is no fixed structures that are being put in place. There is a Quonset tent that would be set up, but this fabric, it's all surface-mounted and can be brought down at the end of that period. But we are and would be responsive to longer-term planning for the space, particularly in Vanier Park, and then perhaps with adjacency into this area here. So not a permanent solution, but something that during the time frame we do... believe that we have enough runway to take advantage of this opportunity, and as Director Brodie mentioned, provide partnership benefits to some key folks, particularly in our arts and culture community.
So a little bit about why this is needed. I think it's been well documented. You see the slide on the right, but well documented across a variety of other events, including things like car-free days and whatnot, whereby... The post-pandemic cost increases have been significant. I think most events are facing cost increases anywhere in the range of 35% to 45%, and it's having a major impact on the financial viability of both short-term events as well as long-duration events such as BARD.
It's forced BARD to review, I think, every aspect of their operations, and one of the key pressures that they're facing as they head into this year is is that their current warehouse space requirements are coming to an end in December this year. the market rates for those traditional warehouse-type structures that are built environments, the market rate is unviable. So looking here and through conversations between our respective team members, looking to see if we can pursue an innovative direction, which would actually mean involving having some space set aside in the Burrard Civic Marina, a strategic space, of course, because it's located immediately adjacent to the Burrard performance site, where bard would have the ability to set up the storage facility the footprint as i mentioned a little bit less than what was contemplated in 2021 2022 the makeup within it a little bit different as well so what would it look like this is um just a a rendering um to scale um the entire outline here is the land storage area obviously we have existing storage areas for user groups to the west and then what would be contemplated is a fully enclosed and fenced area that would be fully operated by bird with a primary entrance and exit point here at the south which already exists and was a legacy item that was left behind by the previous event from 2021 and 2022. The next slide here just shows a little bit more detail of the makeup of the area with, again, the outside boundaries of the storage facility. and then the anticipated footprint for the Quonset structure, and there would be some outside storage areas as well for other BARD equipment. BARD would still need to secure additional storage in a climate-controlled environment off-site, but this would handle a core component of their storage needs.
So talking a little bit about the benefits, this initiative would support a more efficient and medium-term storage approach and also enables important cost reduction opportunities for BARD. It would also deliver environmental and positive neighbourhood impacts. It would remove effectively over... 40 semi truck trailer trips in through the neighborhood as well as other vehicle movements I think through five-ton trucks so you'd see a lot more reduction in terms of that environmental type of movements. From a Park Board perspective, it does a few things. It fully protects, in terms of the terms that we've spoken about with BARD, fully protects Park Board revenue streams. I think as this board is aware, we're under our own financial pressures and we need to ensure that those are protected. So this is not a subsidy to the board. It's simply an enabler of cost savings to BARD.
And then there would be an annual inflation adjustment that would increase over time as well. It also provides the park board with stability in revenue from this particular operation, which is something that is appreciated. And then it would also provide both administrative and operational efficiencies.
In terms of some of the key considerations, from a financial perspective, all the expenses to establish and operate the compound where the facility would be borne by BARD. There are no expenses to the park board. Park board revenues are fully maintained, as mentioned earlier, and protected, and would escalate over time at the rate of inflation. And the anticipated direction is that revenues would continue to flow to marine operations, be available for marine activities, as well as other park board priorities. In terms of risk, in working with Tim and his team, it's an initiative that's considered low risk in the sense that the feeling is that the space can be made available with little to no impact to Marina users. Marina users have been advised or were advised of the initiative last week at the time the report became public. May have wanted to provide additional notice if possible, but this is something that a lot of pieces are coming together, including some funding grants that are time-limited through the City of Vancouver. So we're working through those pieces. We have heard from some of the Marina... Patrons, I think some of the issues that have been raised have not been a surprise. They're similar to what we heard back in 2021, 2022. And we feel that we have responses in place for those issues that have been flagged. And I just wanted to flag lastly that this opportunity is independent of other activities that we're working with BARD. So they come together independently. They're not necessarily conjoined. But together, you know, whether it's the pilot program, this initiative, it's approved, and any future discussions come together as a package, a meaningful package to support our arts and culture partner.
The other thing that this does from a park board perspective as well is by ensuring a healthy partner, it helps ensure future revenue streams that we are deriving from BART and the regular operations at Vanier Park. So in summary, I think as the board knows, BARD is a longstanding and important cultural partner, not only for the Park Board, but for the citizens of Vancouver. It is facing significant financial and operational pressures. We've worked collaboratively with BARD's team to explore solutions. I think BARD has expressed their thankfulness to the board's support for the pilot program in 2024. We're now bringing this second opportunity forward that we feel can be operationally and successfully implemented.
So we've considered this and the many items that fall into play. And I think between myself and then especially with Tim's knowledge and his team are confident that the program could be implemented confidently and successfully over the time period in question. So the recommendation that is coming before the board this evening is that the Vancouver Park Board approve a request by Barn on the Beach, Shakespeare Festival, for the lease of space at Burrard Civic Marina land storage lot for use as a temporary storage facility, including the installation of a Quonset tent structure as outlined in the report, that the Vancouver Park Board authorize staff to negotiate to the satisfaction of the park board's general manager and the city's director of legal services, and enter into an agreement with Bart on the Beach Shakespeare Festival for the above-mentioned initiative for a term of 10 years, and that no legal rights or obligations shall arise, and no consents, permissions, or licenses are granted hereby, and none shall arise or be granted hereafter, unless and until all contemplated legal documentation has been executed and delivered by all parties. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. We'll open up the floor to questions from commissioners. Commissioner Digby's up first.
I don't think any of us have doubts or questions about the importance of this for Bard on the beach. But the question is, of course, Burrard Civic Marina. So it looks like there's a lot of boats parked on that space and a lot of cars go there. And in some photos we've seen, it's quite full there. So how are the users at Burrard Civic going to be protected if they're losing all this space?
Through the chair. So we've reviewed the reconfiguration of the upland storage areas is how we refer to it. So there's two primary uses of that space. One is for seasonal bolt storage and the other is for parking for our patrons. So what we've done is we've actually inherited a lot that was primarily used as a parking lot and not really designed to accommodate boats. So we've looked at a reconfiguration plan that will basically allow us to really not lose any boat storage and at the same time mitigate really any of the real loss of vehicle parking.
Well, boat storage in regards to the area that's affected by Bard. So we're being asked to basically allocate a portion of the upland area for BARD. The boats that are typically stored within that area, we expect to be able to assimilate them into the other areas of the upland storage area.
So with no loss of storage.
They seem to be laid out on a flat ground. Can't you normally stack boats? Or are we not doing that? You have some other plans.
Typically those type of boats are usually more motor boats. You see that quite a bit in southern United States. We haven't explored that. That would be quite an expensive capital outlay. But primarily, yes, the lot is flat. We store them individually, side by side. And as I mentioned before, primarily the boat storage is seasonal use or sort of mid to long-term storage.
Mishima Sivenski.
Thank you for this. I appreciate the opportunity to support our arts and culture.
But I'm curious, with this, it seems like we're doing a wonderful thing by supporting Bard and bringing it closer to home. But will it have any impact on or does it present opportunities to extend the season? Because if you're not doing all the trips and stuff like that, I'm wondering, is it going to have any impact on the dates of when they perform?
So it's not a question that has come up during these conversations between ourselves and the board of representatives, but I think it's a question that can be posed to one of the representatives here in the room to determine whether or not that's something that is contemplated. For this specific marine opportunity, what we have talked about is if we were to contemplate other initiatives on the main festival site. then there is an opportunity to potentially expand season or programming opportunities. But that would be a separate initiative.
Yeah, so I guess my question is more of the policy side. So if they wanted to expand the season or do other things to the site, that becomes a policy decision at the board? Is that correct? Or is that something that staff can help them with?
It would be a policy decision at the board. So that is something that we have started some very initial conversations around potential considerations, again, of how we can... look for some either efficiencies or opportunities within the BARD site. Some of those would require longer term investments and the idea would be that we'd be bringing back a report to the board around what some of those opportunities could be and seeking the board's endorsement for a longer term planning site lines and initiative on the main site. And what's the time frame for that? Right now, it's accelerated. We're looking at probably Mayish sometime. We've already, BART's been able to support and supply some initial ideas around opportunities. So we need to get past this one. And as soon as we get past... this potential opportunity then we would look to potentially bring back a report to get the board's either approval or support for a longer term consideration on the location and then we would work to develop that concept a little bit further and then bring that back for a final approval at the board level that last approval would be the idea would be to bring it before the summer recess so notional approval for a longer initiative That would come sort of in that early to mid-May, and then with a final approval on potential ideas in advance of the summer recess.
Wonderful. Appreciate the time frame. Thank you.
I just wanted to ask about how this would, or first about the Vanier Park master plan and what the status of that is, and then two, how this would potentially impact that if there were to be the master plan approved within the 10-year term and how those things would connect.
I'm going to direct it to Director Mack.
Hi, thanks. We've been contemplating opportunities for a master plan or a management plan for Vanier Park with the host nations, especially since the development of the Sinox site. And so we're currently at a stage where we're looking towards a governance framework with the three host nations. That would need to be confirmed before we can enable that planning process to begin. And so with that in mind, it's going to take time to move that project forward with respect to the nation's availability and timeline. So we see that the Duration of this proposed use would align kind of appropriately with that. So 10 years is probably suitable for us to get into that planning process, confirm an approach forward and change in management and implement that so this time frame doesn't prevent our master planning work to continue.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner, any further questions for staff?
Thank you so much for coming out today and answering our questions. Great, thank you. And we will start calling up some speakers.
Our first speaker is Sean Smith.
If you could just state your name, who you're representing, your position on the matter, and there'll be three minutes up on the screen.
Thank you.
My name is Sean Smith. Okay, can you hear me now? My name is Sean Smith. I'm representing the Broward Civic Marina Community Association. My position is currently undecided, as I have some questions which can hopefully get answered tonight. A couple of minor things might be mountains out of molehills, but I know that there seems to be a little bit of confusion between temporary and 10 years. Those two don't seem to jive to me. And I noted that the report was issued March 18th, but Marina's patrons weren't notified until March 23rd. So not very much notice from Marina patrons to absorb this. The proposal, well, first of all, I've got nothing against Sprite on the beach. I think... I love Bard and the Beach, and they're great neighbours. The proposal itself represents another step in the steady erosion of amenities and services over the years. Every year we pay more and receive a bit less, and nibble by nibble, bite by bite, will there be anything left of this revenue-generating facility, which to date has had a three-to-one profit ratio. For every dollar in operating costs, the marina generates $3 in revenues to general park board funds. But until very recently, little to none is actually retained to the marina. That said, I'm happy to see potential of revenues to the marina. As a bit of a reminder, the majority of the marina was built from timber piles dating from 1963 and concrete and styrofoam floats from 1982. The average lifespan of marine infrastructure is 20 to 30 years. So, repair and renewal is long overdue, and yet, you know, I've been in the marina for 25 years, pushing for capital plan investments, and it has never happened. So, I've been waiting 25 years for this. So if this goes into, you know, infrastructure renewal in the marina, I'd be very happy to see that. So my main question is, how much revenue will the lease create for the marina, and will all revenues stay with the marina? I'd like to have that answer on record. And also, how can we be assured that this money is going into the marina? You know, finances of the marina are subject to FOI requests, which we have made in the past, but seem to get more and more difficult from year to year. So, the transparency would go a long ways towards bettering relations and the customer experience. Thank you very much.
Can I ask through the chair if the questions that were, those two questions that were posed can be answered by staff?
Yeah, is there staff available who could answer? Can you just maybe? I'll let you repeat your question. Just very succinctly if you could.
Sure. How much revenue would be generated by the arrangement and will all or some defined proportion be returned to the marina for investment?
Great, thank you. Oh, sorry.
Go ahead. Confidential financial information. So we'll have to ask staff discretion in their response.
Okay. Thank you.
I'll ask Associate Director Silva, who's closest to the file, to talk about some of those things and fill in if need.
Okay. Thank you. Yep, you're on.
Great, thank you. Yeah, when it comes to how much money would be generated, that is a figure that is commercially sensitive, so it wouldn't be something that we're disclosing in public. When it comes to the amount of revenue that would stay with the marina, I'll maybe take a stab at it and then maybe turn it over either to GM Jackson or Director Brody. I mean, I think it's wise to see, you know, again, a portion of these revenues, a meaningful portion, be reinvested in the marina. But again, like other revenue streams that are coming to the park board, I think it would be fair to assume that they may also be allocated to other park board priorities. But I think, you know, from a strategy standpoint, you know, and ensuring that we get the support of Marina users, we would, you know, be both recommending and expecting that, you know, a meaningful portion would go back into Marina reinvestment. Maybe I'll turn it over to Director Brody to comment further. I think that's a good point. Oftentimes, we don't run our marina like a full business. I think if we were a private marina, we would reinvest all of our revenues. Of course, the prices would also go up at a private marina. So that's some of the cost-benefit analysis you get in a public marina. Again, like Associate Director Silva said, we're trying to maintain as much revenue as possible into those areas of business that do make revenue. So your point is... vowed and noted, and we're trying to make improvements as best we can. In the municipal system, of course, we have many things that we fund, and so we do our best to kind of find those right priorities and reinvest at the same time.
Thank you, staff. Any further questions to the speaker? Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Claire Sakaki. Come on up.
Thank you, commissioners, for having us here tonight, and thank you for your support of Barn on the Beach for over 37 years. I'm really thrilled to have heard the opening statements because I think partnership is the word that we are so grateful for. There has been immense pressures on so many organizations, especially arts and culture, since the pandemic and BARD is no different and we are fighting to have our audiences return. We are dealing with extreme cost increases amongst many other things and partnerships like ours between BARD and the Parks Board ensure that we are able to survive. We are grateful to have been working with the team. Octavio did a wonderful job of explaining so much of what has been happening since 2024's pilot project that we are so happy for it to have been so successful. and to have the ongoing discussion about how else we can come up with creative solutions to be able to do our business better. While the storage solutions might not be the most visible or celebrated of all the park amenities, this kind of infrastructure is essential to the functioning of our festival. Again, Octavia did a wonderful job of explaining it all. It will allow us to maintain our operations, continue to hire the almost 300 people that we hire annually. It's strengthening our local economy, especially the arts and culture sector. It allows Barr to reduce our storage costs, as talked about, provide logistical efficiencies and reduce environmental and neighbourhood impacts. And it will, as discussed, also help secure the park board revenue streams. This is very important to us as we try to keep coming up with creative solutions in these very, very difficult times for all of our sectors. Thank you for your support up until now for decades. We are grateful for that partnership, and we hope it will continue, and thank you for your consideration of our proposal this evening. Thank you so much.
Commissioners, any questions? Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Christopher Gaze.
I begin to state your name, who are presenting your position on the matter.
For the record.
My name, Christopher Gaze. I'm the Artistic Director of Bar on the Beach.
Claire said it, but thanks so much for... All the great work your staff at the Parks Board has been doing quite intensely over the last few years and in great cooperation with us to try to push us on and allow us to do what we do. Bard has become this sort of iconic figure theatre company, amenity of the city, and so, so important as we see other things that you are incredibly or deeply aware of that have collapsed or disappeared. But Bard has gone on. Claire just said, the numbers of people we employ, the hundreds of thousands, almost two and a half million people over the 37 years, or we're coming into our 37th season, have come to Bar in the Reach. That's a massive number. And it's a beautiful... Slightly unusual in that it's Shakespeare in this iconic place in this magnificent park with a view of the sea and the mountains and the sun going down. It offers not only great drama and wonderful theatre. but it offers an exquisite experience. It's mostly, I'd like to, I think many people think, well, Bard, I mean, you're successful because of tourism, aren't you? And I don't, I say I don't think, it isn't, I'm telling you, it is not the case. Bard is, our audience essentially comes from right here. Yes, you have friends and you buy them tickets. They come from Toronto or... London or wherever they live in the world. And you bring them as your guests. And that's how Bard goes. But mainly, this is owned and operated by our city. And it's a great success story in the arts. But by God, we need help. And we're a big budget. It's almost $10 million. And since the pandemic... Like every other organization, it's been a struggle, but you have helped a great deal, and we're deeply grateful for that. So I won't take up any more of your time except to say I've been coming here for 37 years, and I feel part of this building. And so thank you all very much.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Clarification questions? Thank you so much for coming out tonight. Oh, sorry, I did not see you flashing. Commissioner Bastivansky.
Christopher, thank you for coming down and speaking and for the work you do in the community. Barton Beach is absolutely special. But I'm curious, with this 10 years, it offers you a bit more certainty. You're going from year to year, and now you have a longer time horizon. Is there anything special or of note that you could do with that certainty? Like you're a creative guy and I love your masterpieces, but like 10 years, tell us what the future of BARD looks like.
I think the growth or the... I think what we have to do over the next 10 years is we need to solve problems like... the expense of storage. That's a dreary part. It's not what we do. But it's a huge thing. It's being built right now. And you have to put it all away somewhere. And storage costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. We need to solve that problem. Someone or some organization, a developer or someone who owns a storage unit needs to say, Give us a tax receipt. You can store it in our building. And that would be a wonderful. We need to build out things like that so that Bard can be sustainable. That's the big trick. And that's what my... I talk about legacy, if you like. I will not rest. I will not stop until BARD is in a position that it is sustainable. And so I don't know about 10 years, but I hope to get a lot accomplished in the next three years so that other things can happen. Your staff just talked about it. in what are the bones of Bard, what we leave behind in the wintertime. Imaginations can work on that, and great things can happen, new and special things for the city in the wintertime. Wonderful. Thank you.
Great. Thanks. Any further questions now before I get caught? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much, Christopher. Our next speaker is Nick Chukov. Nick, come on up. If you could just state your name, who you're representing, and your position on the matter.
Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Nick Tochev, and I'm here to oppose the new proposal. I feel outnumbered here. seven days of notice. I don't think anybody of our members have noticed it, or at least including what's the impact for the next 10 years. But I felt obliged to come and speak because I think this is going to directly affect us. By the way, I gave maps with specific... Can we pause my time so I can distribute those?
We'll pass them around as you speak.
Well, okay. So there's the parking lot, bird's eye view of the parking lot and the proposed storage that's going to be leased to Bird on the Beach. We do have most of our parking there. So I figure by just looking at the boxes, even losing some of the short-term storage for the boats, we are going to lose half of our parking. And there was a commissioner's question that I really didn't hear the answer on parking.
Brevard Civic Marina is one of the biggest, is the biggest on Falls Creek. We have 432 berths and 162 boats stored in the storage lot. These are close to 585 berths. users, regular users, paying full-time membership. It's a pristine marina. There's no wait list. There's no way to get on this marina. So it's desirable space. I live in Port Coquitlam. I love the water. I love sailing. This is the most sustainable way of traveling the waters. It's millennia old. And I believe... I cannot pack my boat and transfer it to suburbia. I need access to this space. And what I hear for BART is trying to relocate it where it's most convenient. And I get it. It's really operationally feasible. However, I can't do this on a scale... park my boat and drive it here and park it. Anyways, let me focus on the biggest concern that I see. The biggest concern is the lack of space. If we are to have, by my estimate here, we're going to have about 80-something spots available for the 585 marina slips. If there's a single boat, assuming single vehicle per boat, we are going to have 15% of our members be able to pay. And that is, we pay for, I am partner with Peter, we own a boat, 50-50. We have usually two vehicles. One is equipment, the other one is launching.
I'm sorry to cut you off. I gave you a little bit of extra time there because I know you had to pass the papers around. But I think Commissioner Digby has a question for you.
Okay. Yeah, so I did ask staff this question. And there are a number of boat slots, storage slots, that they will find other space for it inside the compound. And that's what we've been told by staff. And I have confidence in their answer because I can see how they would do it. So the question is, would that be okay for you? I mean, if you can be, if staff can show you where these boats are going to be relocated to inside the compound, would that answer your major concerns?
I don't see the space, and forgive me, but there's a construction of the three tower buildings. There's a construction access, and I've highlighted it. It's the southernmost section of the storage lot. We don't know what's the future use, but I think it's used by the construction for access utility, who knows what. Currently, it's been gated for the last season, so parking is not available there. THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE BEACH IS THE BUILDING OR STORAGE AREA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY HALF OF OUR SPOTS. I'D LIKE TO CORRECT THE PARKING THAT'S TO THE WEST OF NEAR THE BEACH.
it's not borat marina parking yeah yeah parking yeah i understood i understood but okay so i'll just say so if staff can explain this to you though how they intend to do it
I FEEL THAT THE MEMBERS HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD IN THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. AND FOR A SHORT DURATION, YOU SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE, AND BELIEVE ME, I VALUE THE PARTNERSHIP OF ART AND OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. THE SUNSET AND THE SETUP IS GREAT. I ENDORSE THAT.
COMMISSIONER HAIR HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO LET HER ASK A QUESTION HERE. Thank you for coming today. Do you feel like the members were not consulted? Were you guys consulted at all about this?
No.
Or any of the members?
Have you been speaking to the other members? We've been in communication with the Marina to renew our membership, and the latest newsletter that we received was informing us of this. I talked to my partner, and both of us, we were super surprised. So there's very little communication. There's very little representation on the Marina patrons here. And what I'd like to do is implore you to delay this decision so you can hear everybody's opinion, or not everybody's, but include the Marina members, because this... I feel it hasn't been communicated properly and hasn't been consulted with the majority of the users of the marina.
And when was the newsletter? When did you receive the newsletter last?
It was a week ago, Peter. Help me out here.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I just was hoping to ask a question to staff. One question about the parking and just if you can confirm the parking situation and the number of spots that would be maintained. And then question two about what engagement and consultation has been done to date.
If you just press the button there.
So I'll engage the first question through the chair. The first point about the actual amount of parking spots. So the initial plan is that we're actually going to be inverting the current parking boat storage situation. So historically, most of the boats were stored towards the eastern half of the upland area. closest to the Burrard Bridge. So with the BARD's proposal, we'll be allocating a portion of the western side of the upland area, which will be, as my colleague had mentioned, will be completely isolated, be fenced off and separate from the overall marine operations. So the idea is that we'll be moving boats to the fence line of the BARD on the beach allocated area. We'll also be adding boats along the current northern fence line, which is currently not used. It was used previously for non-motorized boat storage, such as kayaks and canoes. Those items have subsequently been moved to the eastern portion of the lot to allow for the flexibility of moving boats along the fence line. So that will aid in the absorption of any of the lost seasonal boat storage. The other aspect to it, and I haven't seen the diagram the gentleman's provided, but the parking will then move from the western half of the lot closer to the Broad Street Bridge, once again utilizing the fence line and also sort of densifying the overall parking spaces closest to the actual water itself. So in essence, what we're doing is we're flipping the parking lot, moving the boats further away from the water area, but moving the vehicles closer to the water access. So at which point, we don't suspect that we'll lose any of the short-term storage for boats, and we'll probably net out even or maybe even a little bit positive with the parking. So one of the things that hasn't been represented on this is that it always seems that whenever Google Earth flies or Google flies over top of the marina, it's either full or it's completely empty. So it never tells a true story. But as far as capacity goes, we don't think that... You know, any of the parking will be lost. It actually will be much more efficient because what we have inherited here is we've inherited a parking lot that's been asked to do double duty for the last 60 years. And that double duty was to store boats and also allow for vehicle parking. So what we're looking to do when we do the reallocation of the spots is actually design it for boat storage as well as vehicle parking, which is not there currently.
And then with regards, I'll speak to the notification. There was the gentleman who spoke earlier about the dates. So that is an internalized process. So we are required to provide notice or do an internal document prior to it actually going public. So there was a bit of a delay there where we had dated the report for staff and also for the board to review. So that was the 18th date.
And yes, we did send out a newsletter after that. That date aligned with the actual date that the proposal goes public. So we can't release any information prior to that. So we are a little bit short-noticed. We do also recognize that it is only a week of time. But based on how quickly everything has come together, it really was kind of the only reasonable notice that we could provide. We didn't know if it was actually coming to the board for presentation or it wasn't. But also the sort of the moving parts all came together quite quickly. So we do apologize for the short notice. But we do believe we can mitigate most of the operational issues that are concerns for the patrons.
And was there any engagement with like sort of any of the marina organizers or?
Not prior to the newsletter going out, partly because once we do finalize the space, we will actually have information to provide. So what we've done is we've only done preliminary reviews, and it would be a little bit premature to come to the board or to the members and say, we don't really have definitive information. Situation here, please give us your comments.
Okay, so thank you. Thank you so much for clarifying that Any further questions from commissioners seeing and thank you very much for coming to speak tonight, and we're gonna move to our last speaker J.C. Demelda, thank you JC We'll get this last speaker
Hello, Commissioners. My name is Jason Almeida, and I am a member of the Broad Civic Marina Community Association, and we are an association of boat owners within the marina. A lot of the things I was going to talk about have been talked about by other speakers so far, so I'll skip through some of them. But just to touch on a few things. Things of concern are the temporary proposal and the 10-year length of it, which just seems a little contrary. So a few people have talked about that. So that is one of the concerns. Another major concern is revenue that is generated from this proposal.
IN THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, IT SAYS REVENUES DRAINED BY THIS INITIATIVE WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW TO MARINA OPERATIONS AND BE USED TO SUPPORT MARINA ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS PARK BOARD BUDGET PRIORITIES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PARK BOARD BUDGET PRIORITIES HAS BEEN A LONGSTANDING PROBLEM WITH THE MARINA IN THAT THE PRIORITIES TAKE THE REVENUE AWAY FROM THE MARINA. SO THE MARINA is often a state of needing repair and maintenance and upgrading because the monies go to other departments. And that has been a long-standing practice. I've been with the marina for 27 years and have seen this happen regularly. In regards to what the previous gentleman said,
It said here, event proposal, non-renewal of some transitory short-term boat storage requests may also be required. I think that's implying that some boats will not be renewed. So they will be losing the spaces where they're going to be keeping their boats. Also, I have been with the Marin for a long time. And I live downtown West End. I live in an apartment, no balcony, no backyard. And the marina to myself and to many of the people down there, it's more than just where we keep our boats. It's also where we meet our friends and we make a lot of friends there as well too. It's where we go to get away from the city, even though it's in the middle of the city. It's a beautiful place. It's relaxing. It's like a really good cure for mental health. It's a great place to be. And so for many of us, This is where we go to find peace and tranquility and friendship. And because of that, one of my concerns for the longest time has been the welfare of the marina. Bard speaks about having a healthy relationship, and I think that's an excellent idea, because if we can have a healthy relationship with Bard and have their revenue come in to actually help maintain the health and quality of the marina, I think it's a very positive thing. But if the money gets drained away to other Parks Board facilities and projects that don't help the marina, I have a hard time buying that.
I'm sorry to cut you off. That's quite all the time. I'm done.
I'm sorry. Any commissioners have clarification questions? Seeing none, thank you so much, JC, for coming in to chat tonight. Thank you. So that brings us to the end of the speakers.
Sorry. Would somebody like to move the recommendation? I see Commissioner Digby. Oh, my gosh, too many hands. And a seconder, Commissioner Bastiowanski. We'll now discuss the recommendation. Before we do discuss the recommendation, actually, we will need a motion to extend the meeting to the end of the committee meeting. I see Commissioner Jensen. Can I get a seconder to extend the meeting? That's Commissioner Digby. We'll call a vote on extending the meeting to the end of the committee meeting. All in favor? I see Commissioner Bastiwanski, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Hare. All opposed?
Abstentions? Commissioner Howard. So that's carried. So we will continue this meeting past 10 p.m. to finish the committee meeting. We will reconvene tomorrow for the board meeting, just for commissioners to be aware, at 6.30. So be prepared to come back for the board meeting at 6.30. Okay, sorry, we're talking about the staff recommendation. We are on comments now. Do any commissioners want to make comments on the recommendation before we call a vote? Commissioner Bostevansky.
I'm in support of this. I think the arts and culture in Vancouver are under a lot of pressure. I think Bard has brought so much to Vancouver and so much joy and so much laughter. And so it has a special place in my own time in Vancouver. It's just been a wonderful thing, and I want to show appreciation to the people at Bard for doing this. And I know how hard it is, and I appreciate that this is one of the ways that we can give you that legacy that you were looking for with Vancouver. And so I'll be supporting this. Thank you.
Commissioner Herr.
Bart on the Beach has a really special place in my heart as well. My children have been going there forever before I was ever elected. And I think it's a part of Vancouver culture. And I will be supporting this. My only concern is we have neighbors and we have community members. and it's important communication is key so it seems like there's some people that are upset and they haven't been reached out to and it's just a sometimes it's just a gesture a glass of wine or coffee taking people out and just letting them know what's going to be going on moving forward and and just being good neighbor here Vancouver I say is a village so um you know I will be supporting this but please do reach out to the members of the marina thank you yeah
Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. I too am excited to continue our support for arts and culture in Vancouver. We are seeing a number of festivals and events being cancelled or cut back due to budgetary concerns and so you know, in this role to be able to step up and provide some stability for a very trusted and treasured organization like Barred on the Beach. It's really important for me to be able to support that. I will say to those of the Burrard Marina, speaking with you in our budgets a number of years ago, you know, your concerns about your fees going up. and not seeing value. I want you to understand that I highlighted when I read this, this idea that we need to invest. We need to look at this and continue to have a strong partnership. We can't value one partnership greater over another. And just like Bart on the beach, you're... expressing to us how challenging it is for yourselves. And so looking at this, my promise to you is that we will hold the board accountable to this promise that I believe is a promise and that as we look at getting funds that we can allocate those to the much needed improvements that need to happen at the Burrard Marina. And again, I appreciate you coming here and speaking tonight and I appreciate you coming and speaking at our budget meetings in the past. Thank you so much. I will support this, though. Thank you.
I do just want to, we could talk about how great BART is, but I do want to focus on the marina and, again, the similar discussions we had about the budget and the concerns, and I think we worked through those in terms of what the amenity improvement fee looked like and how that would benefit the marina. I think this is similar where I think we're making the decision maybe before the communications have been entirely clear. And I think it sort of is explained that was difficult for staff to sort of release that information before it came to the board. So it's hard to sort of give information to the Marina before the board votes on it. So it's a little bit. chicken before the egg kind of issue but I do think sort of what staff have talked about that it's not just that we're taking away a bunch of space there is going to be sort of an improvement to that area in terms of redesigning the whole layout of the parking and making sure that it's used in a better way so although the square footage is smaller hopefully it's a net benefit or at least a sort of neutral wash uh to the marina on this and hopefully some of that revenue will make its way back into the marina so hopefully now that the board has discussed this and it's come to the board now staff can really work with the marina to figure out what that's actually going to look like and how it's going to impact you and hopefully you'll find benefit in this sort of parking improvement we'll call it so i'll be supporting this and i hope that staff will work with you closely on this item Commissioner Howard, online comments?
Thank you. Yes, along the same line, I will be supporting this proposal, but I'm quite concerned that... the marina is not getting quite the attention that it deserves. And I would really want staff to make sure that this storage situation is not going to impact in any way the way they have been operating. But I do understand that, you know, we have to make the best use of the space. And this looks like a logical move.
Okay, thank you.
Seeing no further comments, I'll call the vote by a show of hands. All in favor? That is carried unanimously. Thank you, Commissioners.
Thank you, everybody. So we've come to the end of that item, and we'll be moving on to our next one. I'll just give folks a second to shuffle staff out. Maybe we'll just take a two-minute recess. Please, thanks.
We are now going to move on to our final item tonight, which is the 2026 Outdoor Pools Operational Plan update. This will be introduced by Director Kellogg of Recreation Services. Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening about the 2026 Outdoor Pool Operations Plan. Tonight's presentation provides a review of the 2025 outdoor pool season and outlines proposed operational adjustments for the 2026 season. The intent is to share key insights related to patron experience, service performance, and operational capacity and to present data-informed changes aimed at strengthening equitable access, improving service delivery, and maximizing public value while continuing to prioritize safety. While operational decisions of this nature typically fall within staff authority, the significant level of public interest and engagement experienced during the 2025 season prompted staff to bring this work forward to the board to ensure alignment and transparency. The recommendations before you are grounded in a comprehensive evidence-based review incorporating public engagement and market research, attendance and reservation data, operational metrics, and it's also supported by frontline staff experience. Together, these inputs have helped inform proposed adjustments that respond to both demonstrated demand and identified barriers to access. Joining us this evening are Dylan Myers, Associate Director of Recreation Services, and Tanya Donaldson, Supervisor of Aquatic Services. Dylan and Tanya will walk you through the findings from 2025, summarize what we heard from the public, and present the proposed operational changes for the 2026 season for the Board's consideration. They're supported by Vivian Phan, who's the financial analyst from the city's strategy and project support office, and Alan Dawe, senior VP from Legere. With that, I will hand it over to Associate Director Dylan Myers to take you through tonight's presentation.
Good evening commissioners and thank you for your time.
The purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide an overview of the 2025 outdoor pool season including public sentiment, key performance metrics and to outline operational planning for the 2026 season.
I'd like to begin by providing some context on how we arrived at the current access model as well as the work that's been evolving for nearly a decade now. Regarding our outdoor system, it's important to remember that all our outdoor pools provide incredible value to Vancouverites. While Kitts Pool has received a majority of the attention as of late, I do want to recognize the staff and patrons at New Brighton, Maple Grove, and Second Beach Pools as well. In 2018, Park Board staff began reviewing access processes to improve both safety and equitable use.
Staff observations and patron feedback identified operational changes, including long in-person queues, which contribute to heat exhaustion, medical incidents, and challenging interactions between patrons. Additionally, another significant complaint was around the inadequate cleanliness of the facility, predominantly in the changing rooms. Although the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the implementation of the reservation system, staff had already identified the need to modernize access across our outdoor pool system. In 2020, the Park Board introduced a reservation-based model that allocated approximately 80% of capacity to reservations and 20% to drop-in access, along with defined swim session lengths. Since then, staff have continued to refine the approach annually based on the data and feedback from frontline staff and patrons. In August 2025, staff implemented a targeted adjustment at Kitsilano Pool in response to continued feedback about access and flexibility. I'll explain the results of the Kitsilano Pool adjustment last August shortly.
While the access model is one function of our outdoor aquatic system, I'd like to provide some context on the operating model. Our Park Board Aquatic Service Team is one of the largest and most complex aquatic systems in the province. Aquatics operations functions through two distinct staffing models that reflect different service contexts and collective agreements. Our indoor system includes all of our indoor pools, as well as our outdoor tank at Hillcrest and Maple Grove outdoor pool. Our indoor system includes kits, second, and new Brighton outdoor pools, as well as our beaches. As a result, staff and allocation across indoor and outdoor aquatics must be viewed as two separate systems. Based on our research, this dual structure approach is relatively unique among jurisdictions. A key consideration in many aquatic service models in British Columbia over the past few years has been the lifeguard to swimmer ratios and their relationship to pool capacity. Updates related to BC Public Health Act prompted a park board aquatic safety review in partnership with the Life Saving Society. Following this review, the ratios at park board pools were revised from one lifeguard for every 100 swimmers to one lifeguard for every 60 swimmers. This change reduced the number of swimmers that can be safely accommodated per session under existing staffing levels and reinforced the need for operational adjustments. While our aquatic team has made progress in recruiting lifeguards, the broader labour environment has shifted significantly in recent years. While our current staffing numbers are near our highest standard levels, these totals must also be understood in the context of changes in staff availability, scheduling preferences, and overall workforce participation trends. These factors have affected the aquatic sector as a whole, as the Life Saving Society has noted, and we continue to work with them to promote the profession navigate employee preferences related to work-life balance and scheduling staff also continue to work with university school boards and industry partners to strengthen recruitment retention and workforce engagement across the system i also want to take this moment to thank all our hard-working staff through the aquatic system because in addition to lifeguards we also have cashiers clerical support maintenance and janitorial staff who work tirelessly to ensure our spaces are safe and welcoming for all
And on to the Legere public engagement that we did. With that context in place, the 2025 outdoor swim season, staff identified the need to better understand the public's overall experience with the outdoor pool services, including the reservation system. To support this work, the park board engaged Legere, an external marketing firm, to conduct the outdoor pool survey between November 28th and December 8th, 2025. This evening, we'll highlight these findings most relevant to the report, and the complete data set is included in the appendix for reference. Overall, the results indicated that customer experience accessing Vancouver outdoor pools remains very strong, with 86% of recent visitors reporting a positive experience. Importantly, even among respondents who were unable to secure a reservation, overall impressions were largely positive, which suggests a broader service delivery continues to meet public expectations. Lastly, the highest level of satisfaction was among those who successfully secured a reservation, suggesting that the current access model does correlate to a positive experience. The next set of findings relates to the reservation feedback. The most frequently identified benefits were predictability and reduced crowding. Many users highlighted the value of knowing their swim times in advance. In fact, 58% of outdoor pool users over the past two years reported that the reservation system made it easier to plan their visit, primarily because of clearer scheduling and improved certainty. At the same time, we recognize that the system isn't perfect for everyone. The least appreciated aspects are at the speed at which reservations filled and the difficulty of securing preferred time slots. About 32% of residents reported wanting to visit an outdoor pool but being able to access a reservation. These highlights reinforce data showing that the reservation system is frequently oversubscribed, which is why our 2026 operational plan will introduce new approaches, ensure unused reservation slots are available to these patrons. Importantly, even among those who are unable to secure a reservation, overall experiences remain generally positive and most continue to see value in the system for planning purposes.
As highlighted earlier, in August 2025, staff implemented target operational adjustment at Kitts Pool in response to ongoing feedback. The most notable change was the afternoon and evening sessions combined into a single continuous five-hour session. The intent was to provide greater flexibility for drop-in users while also allowing longer uninterrupted swim opportunities from patrons. From an operational perspective... There was no significant change in overall reservation rates before and after the adjustment. However, reservations did feel more quickly under the revised session structure due to the fewer spots available. The terms of user experience, 62% of respondents reported either no noticeable impact or unsure whether the change affected them.
Among those who did report a difference, feedback was mixed. Overall, the results suggest the adjustment had a neutral impact consistent with broader feedback, then increased flexibility is valued while recognizing there are still trade-offs between access, predictability, and availability. While the 2026 operational changes won't replicate all the changes from the KITS pool pilot last August, we've recommended some of the most appreciated changes across our outdoor pool network for this summer.
During the 2025 outdoor pool season, staff partnered with the City's Strategy and Project Support Office, or CIPSO, to conduct a core service review of the outdoor aquatic operations. A key outcome of this partnership was the development of improved data processes across the outdoor pool system. This included a new outdoor pool utilization dashboard that automates data integration and analysis, significantly improving the accuracy, efficiency, and timeliness of operational information. The data highlighted in the report are a direct result of this new system, and we look forward to the full season of metrics for 2026. Prior to this system, staff relied on manual processes to pull and consolidate data, which were time consuming and limited our availability to respond to quick emerging trends. From an operational perspective, this represents a major advancement as staff can now monitor utilization patterns and trends in real time, supporting stronger-to-date decision-making regarding staffing, resourcing, and service adjustments. Overall, this work improves transparency, accountability, and positions the outdoor aquatic system for continuous improvement moving forward.
Now to the changes. Using the findings from the market research survey and insights from the utilization dashboard, staff have identified several operational improvements for the 2026 season. The primary focus on these changes is twofold, targeted evidence-based adjustments to enhance the overall patron experience, as well as improvements in public awareness of the reservation system. The proposed operating hours at Kitsilano Pool will see weekend hours extended on both Saturdays and Sundays. At Second Beach Pool, a new public swim session will be added at 8 a.m., creating earlier access for morning users. And at New Brighton Pool, opening and closing times will be adjusted by 60 minutes, and weekend-length swim times will be added to provide longer swim opportunities. In addition to the operating hours, swim sessions across the system will be redesigned. Most public swim sessions will increase to three hours. The final session at Kitsilano Pool will extend to four hours, and length swims will increase to two hours to better support lane swimmers. This will also eliminate one facility break at each site. These facility breaks are important and serve numerous purposes, including cleaning, maintenance, and staffing operations. However, the primary purpose of the 30-minute time is to ensure safe egress from the facility for anyone who may need a little bit of extra time. This can include families with children, individuals with mobility devices, and our CCA camps who have dozens of children that they have to account for. In regards to the reservation system, public swim sessions will be structured with a 75% reservable capacity and a 25% drop-in access.
For length swims, capacity will be evenly split with 50% reservable and 50% available to drop-in users. Both changes are reflected in the data on the reservation utilization. We explored a wide range of ratios, but the data consistently showed that reservable spots are oversubscribed, signaling demand. At the same time, overall usage patterns show a relatively balanced mix with approximately 44% of visits occurring through reservations and 56% through drop-in access. The higher percentage of patron drop-ins relative to reservations indicates that there isn't a barrier to participation, although we recognize that additional communication to explain the access model will benefit all users. The longer session times will also increase the number of drop-ins that can attend. Additional changes are also being introduced to improve access and flexibility. This includes allowing late entries so patrons can access sessions up to 15 minutes before the scheduled end time. This was a key point raised by our engagement with the KIT Swimmers Group, which they mentioned that some individuals would appreciate a quick, high-intensity swim later in their session. One of the critical areas that working with CIPSO uncovered was the need for no-show management through the reservation system. These included introducing reservation transfers and refunds to release unused spots back into circulation, as well as following up with frequent no-shows users to strengthen accountability and improve overall availability. Based on our research, we found that some individuals frequently were signing up for sessions which they did not attend, which ultimately blocks reserve access for other users. And our final area of focus will be to optimize capacity across the system by reallocating lifeguard staffing between sites that require additional staffing to increase baseline capacity.
So using the findings from the market research survey... Oops, sorry. This should be synced with my computer. Staff will continue to moderate operational data, patron feedback, and emerging trends to refine processes and improve service delivery. The initial work supports our ongoing efforts to adapt services in response to operational realities, health regulations, and involving community needs. While we appreciate the system may not be everyone's preference, we strongly believe the recommendations is founded in public sentiment, data, and our aquatic staffing operations model. Based on this work, staff recommend that the board endorse the proposed 2026 outdoor pool operational changes outlined in the report. Thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you so much for all of this great, great data and information and recommendations. Staff, are there any questions, or commissioners, are there any questions?
Commissioner Digby, go ahead.
Yeah, so I'm particularly concerned about lineups at Kitts Pool. And can you tell me how the lineups were managed? If you had a booking, you could walk straight in, presumably at any time. But the lineups, what sort of range of times of lineups did we have there?
Most of the initial drop-ins were managed within 30 minutes, with the longest times being just over an hour.
So it did go up to an hour sometimes if you had a lot of drop-ins at the start of a session?
Correct. And obviously that was typically when the weather was warmer and higher temperatures.
Okay. And in the end, were some of those people turned away? I mean, did the session close and they were just told there's no chance they're going to get in? Did we have many turnaways?
At Kitsilana Pool, there were two sessions where we have recorded from staff. We had staff manually tracking that information. In July and August, and we had two swim sessions where folks were turned away. One session had one person, and one session had 15 folks.
So we're talking about two months, two and a half months of days, and each day having four sessions. And at a grand total of two of those sessions, people were actually turned away from the pool because we didn't have capacity or it was going to be too full.
Is that right? Correct. That was the data collected by the frontline staff.
Okay. So, and you said in your ratios, can we just say that again, that about 44% of people were booking online and 56% on average were just showing up and dropping in?
So that was the final. So the 44% was the used reservations. So there was larger numbers that were actually reserved, but then we, as we mentioned earlier, the large no-show. So we did have 44% that utilized the reservations, and then the 56% were drop-ins. Through the course of a session, as the Leger data shows, some people are only in for an hour, an hour and a half, so we continue to allow drop-ins as there is turnover in the pool, leading us to 56% that did come in through a drop-in mechanism.
So you're tracking people that exit during the session, and if two people exit, then you can let two more people in, so... Correct. Okay. So that is what I read in your report. So that all lines up. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Howard online.
Thank you. Just a question regarding videos, the split. So in 2025, 44% of visits were by reservation, but you are locating 75% reservation. So I'm not sure I'm following the logic of the attribution of 75%. Can staff explain?
Yeah. For the reservations, there's only an allotment of a certain amount of reservations per session. Essentially, during, say, a three-hour session, there's infinity drop-ins that could theoretically occur because people could come in from half an hour leave. That's another drop-in. So you would like to actually see a system that would be higher in drop-ins based on that ratio. The 75% is just for the starting of the session. That number will fluctuate as the session goes based on how many turnovers we get in the drop-in.
Okay. And do people actually can find out if there is a drop-in option without actually coming to the pool and just checking online?
Like if we're not at full capacity?
If that's the question. How do we find out if there is space? At the last minute, I mean.
I mean, essentially, some of the language that we're changing with the show pass in terms of, and we agree that the language was confusing, that it said sold out, when theoretically there is drop-in available. So we're changing some of the language there. Ultimately, because there's still a drop-in availability that there is a chance to get in, as the numbers show, there was two times where we didn't, we reached full capacity and weren't able to. We've explored in the future of looking at things such as, like I said, different data, different software, CCTV and stuff like that, but it will take a little bit of time to start exploring those avenues.
Okay, and then is there absolutely no... I don't understand why we cannot go to just an open pool. The FIFA fan club is going to be first come, first served. There will be no... People are not booking ahead of time. So you travel a long way and you don't know if you're going to get it or not. Why can't we just apply that to our pools?
Um... Well, basically through the report and the presentation, theoretically, if you get rid of the sessions, you get rid of the reservation aspect. So those that would want to reserve would not have that ability to. The data shows that there are, again, there's no perfect system. Certain, I think it was 86 or 86% appreciated it. So it would just be looking at the other side of that.
It's 86% of people who actually use the pool. You did not actually poll people who have not been going to the pool because they don't like the reservation system.
Right?
Agreed. And like I said, there is no perfect model, and there would be preferences regarding the model. Ours is just based on the data that we have.
So can you tell me why we chose to go with the non-reservation?
Commissioner Howard, your time is up for your questions. We're going to move on to the next commissioner. If there's time at the end, you can hop back in the queue. Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. A couple of questions. First off, do our outdoor pools have the capacity to be open past September into October, potentially November, or even... well into being a year-round pool like Kensington Pool in Burnaby?
There is capacity in terms of, so two factors would inform that decision. Number one, there is going to be an operating cost for that. And so we have explored extending the season in the past, and we've done it on a pilot basis. What we, I believe, presented last year to the board is that there's an exponential decline in participation rates. So if the first week post the September long weekend, we average, I'm going to just make a number up, 1,000 visits, we go down by 50% week two, and by week three, that goes down another 50%. So it's substantial in terms of the decreasing participation. What we don't see is families come to use this pool because primarily they're back in school. So it's predominantly lane swimmers. So we're not seeing people that are paying a drop in admission. It's typically the pass holders. Even our recovery rates for the operating costs go up a fair amount. We're happy to take direction from the board if they'd like to see us come back with a proposed budget that would allow and enable an extended operation, but it is a significant cost.
Okay. And just to sideline that or to borrow into that, have that... Has that idea been discussed with potential user groups that would be willing to step up to the plate and book time right away, knowing that the Vancouver Aquatic Centre is going to be offline for a period of time that could take some of that load off of Hillcrest, potentially?
So some of the swim clubs that are interested in the use of space really are looking at a specific configuration or format. So because this is in a regular size pool at 137.5 meters with two lanes.
Or New Brighton potentially as well being an option as well.
Yeah, and we have explored working with the clubs to open up some of our other outdoor pool spaces. We don't have a lot of uptake for all of our locations. There definitely is a preference for the 25 or 50 meter tank in our indoor pool environment. But we've explored some of those considerations in the past, including considerations for temporary pools, and that was cost prohibitive.
Okay, thank you. Secondly, the idea of, I don't want to use modernization, but have there been other considerations taken by staff to look at ways that we can manage the flow of users within the pool without having to do the 30-minute closure?
So, you know, wristbands, et cetera, things that, you know, you come in, you get a wristband, you swim to your heart's content, and in a sense you're checking out. I don't want to be operational here, but just looking at other solutions outside of the sessions, close, session, close.
Any other questions? We'll pass for three minutes then, Commissioner Jensen.
Commissioner, you can finish the answer to the question. Thank you.
Well, some people can finish, but others can.
Commissioner Howard. It's not your turn to speak.
Thank you. No, I know.
Sorry, please continue and you can answer Commissioner Jensen's question.
There is. That would reduce the concept of reservations. So the minute that we aren't sort of doing that changeover and allowing greater access to a larger number of folks, because pre-pandemic and before we had sessions and having actually been a cashier at the front lines of that, given this is my 43rd summer in outdoor aquatics, I have lived those lineups personally. it doesn't allow for the churn and the increase in access without having folks actually exit the facility.
Commissioner Herr, online.
I just wanted to know, with the studies that were done, When you guys assessed the bookings and the demand for bookings, how many of them were Vancouver residents as opposed to people living in the outskirts?
I believe we have Alan online from Legere.
Hello. I can answer that. of the the people we had half who are from city of vancouver for 401 who reside in city vancouver the rest we chose from burnaby new west north vancouver and richmond just to get those in closest proximity who might use the the vancouver pools as well and results were largely aligned between uh city of vancouver residents as well as those who are using and coming from outside municipalities
So the booking system is mostly being used by people that live in Vancouver or from the outskirts?
It was being used by both. There were no notable differences between the two.
Was there an actual study done for that? Or were you guys actually measuring that?
We were able to segment the data amongst those who are City of Vancouver residents, comparing those to those who live in other parts of the Metro Vancouver area.
And was it like a weekday measurement or weekend?
it was over the course of a week so it's done through an online survey through an online platform people are given the opportunity to participate through a representative online panel and over the course of a week we collected those results and how many how many um what was the data size 801
801, and how many were from the outskirts, I guess? 400.
So we'd add 401 from City of Vancouver, who live in City of Vancouver, and 400 from outside areas, surrounding areas.
So about 800 participants in the data collected. Correct. And then, I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Someone else can maybe answer this. But when... Was it recommended that if somebody misses their reservation, even though they paid for it, are they going to be refunded the money or was it suggested to refund the money or does that spot open up within the half an hour? What was that?
We are working with ShowPass on exactly the terms, but the intention is that refunds would have to occur five hours prior to the start of the swim session so that those spots could be made available for other folks looking for reservations. And if not utilized by reservations, then they would be added to the dropping capacity.
Oh, excellent. And then I know, I mean, usually the Castellano pools open May long weekend. Is it going to be opened again this year? Same timing or what's happening with that?
We're currently working with our colleagues at the city. So one of the challenges with getting the pool ready for the season is just the impacts of the weather. So I think we've shared with the commissioners in the past that in the very wet seasons, we cannot fully drain the pool tank or we risk further damage to the tank. So now that the seasons are improving, that investigation work is underway and we plan to be back to the board with some updates very soon.
So is it possible that the... Commissioner Herr, unfortunately, your time's up. Sorry. We'll come back around. Okay. Thanks. I've just got some questions. Specifically, I think this comes back to the reservation ratios. It was 80-20, and we're proposing a shift to 75-25. It seems like a fairly minor shift. Can you just explain the minor shift and why?
Partly because we typically had very, very high reservations and exceeded demand. Often on busy days in particular, reservations were filled within 24 hours of going online. So we really don't want to limit that capacity. And we did see that through the 56% of drop-ins that we are able indeed to actually get more drop-ins in than our initial. So that 75-25 is that start of swim capacity. not the overall capacity through the course of the duration of the session.
I guess my question is, if reservations are filling up so fast, in my mind, I'm like, well, if the reservations are filling up so fast, doesn't that make more presents to go the other way and say 90% reservations and 10% drop-in?
Absolutely, we are trying to balance the feedback that we heard about that, having that flexibility to be able to come a little more... unplanned and with a little more spontaneity and hence the slightly longer public sessions to again allow that turnover and a little more flexibility for the folks who would like that as part of their experience.
And I think that a big piece of the issues and the feedback was about the people not being aware that there were space for drop-ins. I think the data that was presented as really telling that there was, you know, very few people turned away. Can you just talk a little bit about some of the communications that are going to change this year to sort of make people aware of drop-ins?
So one of the key things is with ShowPass, we've been working with them as opposed to it saying sold out when they get the reservations. It'll say reservations full, drop-ins available. We're working with our communications department to do some pre-season information educational social media posts and really building out that comms plan with their support.
Great. I know our comms are great, so they will do a great job. We'll do a second round of questions. Commissioner Howard, go ahead.
Thank you. So I'm going to go back to the question about you mentioned working with your colleagues at the city on determining the percentage of reservation and open starts. So I'm still trying to understand why we the decision was made to have no reservation for the World Cup fan zone. But we don't think that people would like that same luxury when it comes to going to the pool.
So I can jump in on that one. So Commissioner Howard, there isn't a decision yet. Tonight, the decision is before the board for your decision in terms of how you'd like to proceed. Staff are recommending that based on the data set that we have presented to you that supports that a lot of the community value and appreciate the ability to use a reservation system so they can plan their trip, that this would be a recommendation that still listens to the feedback we've heard. So as one of the other commissioners mentioned, the data set would actually enforce even more reservation opportunities, but we've tried to be responsive to the voices we've heard from the community. And the turnover is a way to ensure that we see an appropriate volume going through a very expensive commodity.
Okay, but you've only asked 800 people, all of them users of the pool. So all the people who have not been going to the pool, that's a lot of people who are not polled. So we don't actually know what they would prefer. And it seems to me that there's a lot of people who are very loud and clear about wanting the opportunity to go to the pool without making an appointment. But I'm also putting it in a context of... what was city staff who decided to not make the fan zone a reserved spot. They seem to think that it's okay, you go there and you wait in line and then maybe you get in, maybe you don't get in. So why can't we do that at the pool?
Commissioner Howard, I can't speak to the fan zone because I'm not familiar with the decision that led to that. This model is consistent with a lot of the recreation services, both indoor and outdoor. So when you attend any of our arenas, our indoor pools, we have sessions that have a start and an end time associated with them. So this is fairly consistent with the way that we deliver services across the network. But maybe I can ask Alan... in terms of the data set. Why did we choose that data set? Maybe some of the statistical analysis. Alan, are you able to give us a little bit more on how we came to how we used the data for the commissioner?
Yeah, and just to clarify that it was 801 residents. It wasn't just pool users. So we did ask people if they are pool users, and we found, I can't remember the specifics, 40... percent of city vancouver residents within the survey itself have reported using a pool so that means sixty percent of the respondents had not you within the city of vancouver had not used a vancouver pool and we also found that amongst them when we asked everybody yes there were 32 percent of residents who said they wanted to uh access the pool but were unable to for for one reason or another um so yes there were we were able to to hear from both pool users as well as those who weren't able as well.
How did you select the people you were asking?
We have a large online panel of participants across Canada, but we're able to focus on the specific areas that we're interested in sampling amongst. So it's the same practice that we do for any types of government polling or any other polls out there. They're not informed of the topics going into it. So it's just it allows us to get people from a variety of perspectives to share their opinion on the specific topic.
So they could have been from Toronto or Calgary?
Commissioner Howard? No, they're screened. We ask them where they're from. We confirm we have practices in place to safeguard and ensure the integrity of the data through multiple mechanisms, including direct questions as well as other factors that we monitor over time from our panel.
Thank you. Commissioner Hare, go ahead.
Commissioner, go ahead. Thank you so much. Just a clarification question, I guess, if anyone can answer it. So is the pool going to be open this summer or not?
Commissioner, I believe you're asking about Kitsilano Outdoor Pool? Yeah. Yeah, so that's a decision that is in investigation. In terms of the timeline for that, we'll be reporting back to the board shortly. I don't have any reason at this point to indicate anything other than it would be open.
You just don't know when it's going to be open. It's dependent on the weather, I guess.
So the current investigation is looking at the impacts of the winter season, if there was any damage caused to the pool and if there's any repairs required and what would be associated with that. As soon as we know that, we will bring it back to the board anticipated within a couple of weeks so that you'll be aware.
And are you guys going to expedite that information back to us? Because, I mean, typically the Vancouverites who are paying lots of taxes, they want it open for May, June at the least, right? So is it possible? Like, when are we going to get a report back? I guess that's a better question.
That report back is anticipated within a couple of weeks. I would expect that by the next board meeting, we should be able to provide you with an update.
Okay, excellent. Thank you so much.
Thanks. Commissioner Jensen. Thank you. One second. There you go. Got you.
Thank you. Just to confirm, we're going to be moving to, if this is approved tonight, to a 75-25% ratio. Is that correct?
Yes, for the public swims. And again, that is the ratio at the start of the swim.
Okay, and please indulge me on this. I know I'm going to deep dive here. What would be the percentage of if we had 10,000 seat capacity and 26,000 of those or 2,600 of those were free? So would that be about 75-25? You have 10,000 seats and 26 are available for free. Would that be about 75-25? Correct. Okay. I'm just referencing the seating for the Fan Fest at the amphitheater. So it is, the Fan Fest will be echoing almost the same as our reservation system. No further questions.
Commissioner Digby.
I confess a profound mystery, and maybe you two can explain it to me. I heard Commissioner Howard make the statement that some people don't go to the pool because they don't want to book an online reservation. And I've knocked on doors throughout the city, throughout Kitsilano, and I did come across one guy who said, well, I don't go to that pool because I don't want to book an online reservation. But what would you say to a person like that if they really did want to use the pool? I mean, what would you say?
We have accommodated a significant number of drop-ins, and there is, particularly with the expanded length of the sessions, even a greater opportunity to have that flexibility and not require a reservation.
Okay, there's a mystery resolved. Thank you so much.
Okay, Commissioners, are there any further questions?
Thank you so much for coming out and presenting all of this lovely data and answering all of our questions.
Thank you so much for your work on this.
Yes. Amazing. Absolutely. Amazing commitment. Okay. We have one speaker on this topic. We have Craig Emerson. If you could just state your name, who you're representing, and your position on the matter, and you'll have three minutes up on the board.
Thank you, through the Chair. My name is Craig Amundsen, and currently I am representing the members of CUPE Local 1004. And there are some concerns that we've seen from this. I'm not saying that we're in favour or opposed to it, but there's some issues in the report that drew our attention. So first and foremost, the report references staff's work on all this. That, unfortunately, doesn't include the staff who do the work. We were not consulted, questioned. We were not part of Leger's surveys. And just to be very clear, 1004 Lifeguards and Local 15 Cashiers were the frontline people who are facing the angry folks. And they're out there and they're upset. And some of them have driven in from Chilliwack with their kids for a day at the pool, being absolutely clueless about the process. And here they are facing potentially an hour-long wait, as was exampled by the staff. I don't see that getting lesser. We've been working on this since COVID. It was actually my understanding, perhaps through Mr. Kellogg, that the original program started indoors, and then COVID hit, and we followed it for the health and safety reasons. But are sessions being operated at indoor pools? It was my understanding that it was only the outdoor pools that were having this particular model, which is generating, unfortunately, some negative reaction.
Sorry, I'm not allowed to ask that question.
Through yourself. My apologies. A couple of key things. Early in the report, it references a specific program of training that went through the Life Saving Society and a partnership with the Life Saving Society as the... ratio of lifeguards to staff was lowered to meet more health and safety standards, or the standards that were recommended across the country. I also happen to be a National Lifeguard Instructor for the city and for other providers. The 1 to 60 is a Vancouver-specific number. The recommendation in best practice is 1 to 40. Presumably for reasons of budget, staffing, what have you, Vancouver's are higher than that recommendation, and I just thought you guys should be aware of that. Number two, I'm repeating myself here, but the market survey staff were not included. And so from our perspective and in talking with some of the head lifeguards at the pools in the last couple of days, we're aware of the communities that are missing. There are many that are not online. Perhaps they don't want to use the phone, they don't want to use the program, and as your own statistics showed, there's a decrease in support for the popularity of it, highest at the younger ages and decreasing fairly steadily as people get older. And then, as I've referenced earlier, visitors from outside Lower Mainland and outside BC and outside the province, frequently they come and are disappointed. And it is the cashiers and the lifeguards who are there having to deal with sometimes their quite loud anger. And this is nothing to do with some of the other groups locally who are adamant that the system should change as well. We're not... taking a position one side or the other. We're just representing staff and what they're having to deal with with this particular situation. I'm sorry to cut you off. That was the time.
But thank you so much for coming out to speak tonight. And do any commissioners... Oh, Commissioner Jensen has a question.
Go ahead. First of all, thank you. Thank you for your membership and brothers and sisters that are out there doing this work for us. Really appreciate that. I would like to ask the challenges that staff are facing over these last five or six years. Understandable. Can you speak to potentially what it was like before this? And, you know, with the... the potential of individuals waiting for a spot that's not...
Certainly, and there are, sorry, there are arguments for the previous system where the lineups were just horrendously long because people would enter the pool, take their space, and they'd stay there all day. It was wonderful for them. It was not so wonderful for that. So we're... in support of measurements that allow greater access, and we think that's a good thing. Whether or not it drives more revenue is not a concern for us, but obviously it's a concern for staff as well as the commissioners and the city council, obviously. But it comes down more to how effectively we can get people into the pool. There is a significant amount of discussion about... Why don't we have more lifeguards? Where is our training coming from? I would say that attraction and retention of lifeguards is a challenge for Vancouver right now, and that might be something that staff wants to talk with staff about.
Sorry to interrupt. I would love to get an understanding of kind of the animosity or anger potential. I don't want to presuppose of those that... came to the pool pre these changes.
Anyone, any of the staff who's worked at Kids Pool, which is the biggest and most high-profile pool, even as staff, if you are leaving and going out for a break and coming back, passing long lineups, there are comments made, there's people staring at you, looking at you. Sometimes they get to know you and they want to know you in hopes that you can sneak them in, and invariably we don't do that. That is something that the cashiers regulate, but... During times of COVID, they actually brought in extra lifeguard staff just to man the lineups. there was problems there as well. Okay. Some of the anger was, it's been easily since before 2018, 2017, but worse during COVID.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
Thank you so much. Okay, that is the speakers on this item. Would somebody like to move the recommendation as presented by staff? I see Commissioner Jensen and a seconder is Commissioner Digby. We'll now discuss the recommendation. It's a short and sweet one. Do any commissioners want to make comments before we call a vote?
Does someone want to go first? No one wants to go first? Okay, Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. Well, I would like to first off thank all of our staff, especially our frontline staff that, you know, they have the benefit of actually dealing with so much wonderfulness, but sometimes they do have to be confronted with some angry patrons and You know, certainly this board, speaking for myself, appreciate their dedication. We have a 43-year member sitting in the back here. And, you know, you wouldn't be a part of that team if it wasn't really rewarding and meaningful. You know, I'm just looking for my number here, but if I can remember it offhand, it's close to 250,000 visits last year. There were, you know, two situations where, you know, individuals needed to line up. And so, yes, I would love to see us get down to zero, but I have to look at, you know, 250,000... you know, very happy participants as a school teacher. You know, I know of so many students that go and visit the pools. They go with families. They love the idea that they can book their time for their birthday party and know that they'll be actually in the pool, on the deck, in the water, not standing, waiting to be let in and hopefully being let in. Are there opportunities for this board and staff to come up with new opportunities as we go forward? I believe we can. And certainly I'm going to hope that we can find ways that we can minimize that time where the pool is offline. A pool without someone jumping and swimming in it is not really a fun pool. And so first of all, you know, we want to get swimmers in this year. But I think, again, having staff continue to work on ways to make sure that we can get as many swimmers into these pools as possible. and to ensure that they are safely enjoying their time. But I'm going to be supporting this. I know that it is not the perfect picture. Again, two people not into our pool is not perfect, but I still look at almost a quarter of a million users, and to me that's a great success. And again, thank you to all the staff that make that possible.
Thank you. Commissioner Digby.
Thank you, Commissioner, and I reiterate your thanks to staff for this excellent report. Commissioners, for many years, the lineups at our outdoor pools, especially kids' pool, have been unpredictable and at times incredibly long. On hot summer days, families with children, seniors and everyone else waited up for two hours, waiting, getting sunburned, sometimes getting into disputes and hoping that others would hurry up and leave the pool. On some of those days, our lifeguard staff spent more time treating heat stroke in the lineups than watching swimmers. So in 2018, a proposal came along to modernize the lineup system with the potential for online booking. And fortunately, the proposal was ready to go when COVID struck, and the system worked well. A maximum number of visitors were able to enjoy the pools in a maximum of healthy circumstances. So in recent years, the system has become a hybrid system. And as we heard tonight, the system permits every day several hundred confirmed entries booked online and twice as many walk-ins or drop-in visits. Some days there's over 1,800 drop-in visits at the kids' pool alone. Now, commissioners, I've spent a lot of time knocking on doors and meeting people at street events in the Kitsilano area and all around the city. And when I ask if they prefer the online booking system or the walk-in, many people have very strong opinions. They insist that one is far preferred over the other. And, you know, I'm fine with that outcome. But very, very few of them say that the other option should be cancelled because I'm so much in favour of my option. Now, there is a minority of Vancouverites out there who say that one of those options should be cancelled. But, you know, the vast majority of Vancouverites understand that if you want to book ahead, you can. And if you want to drop in, you can. In the former case, you need to be a little bit organized and get a spot before they sell out. In the latter case, you can be more spontaneous and you can just show up and walk right in, except sometimes you might have to wait for 30 minutes on a sunny day if there's a lineup. So, folks, the choice really is yours. Do you want to book online or do you just want to show up? You know, I am shocked that no one signed up to speak against this motion today at this meeting. I find the fact that no one showed up to make the case that one of these two hybrid options should be cancelled really speaks for itself. And... I'm not an expert in pool management. I depend on the highly trained park board staff to make these recommendations. And tonight, there's nothing that gives me any evidence that this recommendation is not the right one. And so I'm going to support it, as I've been encouraged to, by dozens of people on the streets and at the doors of Vancouver. Have a good summer at the pools.
Any more commissioners have comments?
I'll make a quick comment, which is I think that staff really went above and beyond on providing the data to back up this recommendation. I think there's a lot of... TALK ONLINE, AND I THINK THAT PRESENTS ONE VIEWPOINT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS, IT REPRESENTS EVERYBODY IN THE CITY, AND I THINK THE STAFF WENT TO SORT OF THE GOLD STANDARD OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, WHICH IS SORT OF THE LEGER POLLS, WHICH REPRESENTS A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO USE, OF THE SORT OF PUBLIC, AND PRESENTS THE OPINIONS MORE CLEARLY. And I think that it does show that there is a split. But I think it shows that there is a large portion of the population that does appreciate the reservation system. And then the other data shows that, you know, drop-ins are available. There was only two days where, you know, 15 people in total in the entire summer got turned away for a drop-in and everybody else got accommodated. So really, you know, this isn't an issue of a reservation system or not a reservation system. I think the issue is just one of education, that the public needs to be aware that if they want to make a reservation, they can, but if they want to drop in, more than likely they will be able to get in. So I really hope that we can take this and educate the public that they can visit our pools and we can get as many people through the doors of our pool and into the water as we can. And I think these recommendations are a great way to do that. So I'll be supporting this.
Okay. So, you know, for the comments, I'll call a vote by a show of hands. All in favor?
I see Commissioner Bastiowanski, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Jensen. All opposed? I see Commissioner Howard and Commissioner Hare. That carries.
Thank you, everyone. That is the end of our agenda. So the meeting is now adjourned. Yeah, so just the board meeting will convene tomorrow at 6 30 p.m. Thanks everyone